Appeal No. 1996-0485 Page 17
Application No. 08/139,456
the examiner omits an explanation of how the combination of
Admission in view of Deacon further in view of Sanders teaches
or would have suggested each of the detailed steps as claimed.
In particular, he has failed to show how the combination
teaches or would have suggested determining the values Y ",
m
U ", and V " by minimizing an error value E over all values Y",m m
U", and V", to determine a minimum error E , where E is
m
substantially equal to LA + MB + NC, where L, M, and N are
weighting factors, A is the absolute value of Y" -Y', B is the
absolute value of U" - U', C is the absolute value of V" - V',
E = LA + MB + NC , where A is the absolute value of Y " - Y',m m m m m m
B is the absolute value of U " - U', and C is the absolutem m m
value of V " - V' as claimed.
m
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
that the references teach or would have suggested the method
for generating a mapping look-up table of claim 22 and its
dependent claims 23-25. Therefore, we find that the
examiner’s rejection does not amount to a prima facie case of
obviousness. Because the examiner has not established a prima
facie case, the rejections of claims 22-25 over Admission in
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007