Appeal No. 1996-3621
Application No. 08/019,783
of a scaling or size change. Interpolation is a
process that will fill in values between adjacent
values so as to form a continuous string of data.
The process recited in the claims only recites the
addition of pixels (either two or four times the
original number of pixels) and does not in any way
recite an interpolation process as “interpolation”
is conventionally defined. While interpolation may
well be part of a size change operation (such as to
fill in values for the expanded image pixels),
interpolation in and of itself is not size change.
These claims only recite that the process is one of
a size change and these claims (as well as the other
claims that are further defined by these claims) are
interpreted as such for the application of prior
art.
According to the appellant (Brief, page 10), “even though
interpolation can be used for scaling an image, scaling an
image is not always interpolating the image.” “Appellant’s
specification states on page 3 line 3, that ‘to smooth the
transitions between pixels of the rotated image, interpolation
is used to add pixels to the rotated image . . .’” (Brief,
page 11). Appellant’s position, therefore, is that “the term
‘interpolate’ is both defined by applicant in his own
specification and is consistent with the accepted definition
of the term” (Brief, page 11). “There is no requirement by
statute . . . that an otherwise definite term . . .
‘interpolate’ be mutually exclusive with another term
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007