Appeal No. 1996-0485 Page 14
Application No. 08/139,456
facie case, the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-17 over
Admission in view of Deacon, claims 18-20 over Admission in
view of Deacon further in view of Sanders, and claims 5, 11,
and 21 over Admission in view of Deacon further in view of
Cook are improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we consider the
obviousness of claims 22-25.
Obviousness of Claims 22-25
Regarding claims 22-25, the appellant argues, “neither
Deacon or Sanders teaches or suggests any method including the
... steps explicitly recited in claim 22 (and which thus also
limit dependent claims 23-25) ....” (Appeal Br. at 19.) In
response, the examiner opines as follows.
One feature of the appellant's claimed invention is
disclosed on page 6, lines 6-9, that "unlike
conventional techniques, the difference between Y
components is weighted much higher to take advantage
of the human eyes' sensitivitive [sic] to intensity
variation". This feature is also taught by Sander
in col. 2, lines 52-68 and in col. 6, wherein
different weighing systems can be used to assign
different weight values to the Y component to take
advantage of the human eyes sensitivitive [sic]
toward luminance. Thus it would have been obvious
to apply Sander teaching to assign higher weight
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007