Appeal No. 1996-3621
Application No. 08/019,783
‘scaling’” (Brief, page 11). A summary of appellant’s
position is that “[i]t does not matter what ‘scaling’ means,
it only matters what ‘interpolate’ means, for the claims do
not use the term ‘scaling’” (Brief, page 12).
Although scaling may coincidentally occur as pixels are
added to the image during the claimed interpolation step,
appellant is not required to describe his claimed invention as
a scaling process. As appellant correctly noted (Brief, page
12), the disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
system and process for interpolating an image, and not to a
system and method for scaling an image. In fact, any attempt
by appellant to claim the scaling of an image would probably
be met with a lack of written description rejection under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. After review of the
complete record, we find that interpolation, and not scaling,
is what the “applicant regards as his invention” under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In summary, the
indefiniteness rejection is reversed because the examiner has
not convinced us to reach a different result.
Turning to the obviousness rejection, the examiner
indicates (Answer, page 5) that Tabata discloses skewing image
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007