Ex parte INOUE - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1007-0016                                                        
          Application No. 08/162,333                                                  


               emphasis means for receiving the sharpening parameter                  
          from the parameter calculation means and sharpening the input               
          image based on the sharpening parameter to produce the                      
          sharpened image, said emphasis means including multiplication               
          means for multiplying an output of said high frequency filter               
          means by the high frequency emphasis coefficient, and addition              
          means for adding the input image to an output of said                       
          multiplication means.                                                       
              The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Yamada et al. (Yamada)        5,212,516                May  18,             
          1993                                                                        
          Takemoto et al. (Takemoto)    0,449,259                Oct. 02,             
          1991                                                                        
                    (European)                                                        
               The rejection of the appealed claims are set forth by the              
          Examiner as follows:                                                        
               1. Claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22 stand finally rejected                  
          under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on an                
          inadequate disclosure.                                                      
               2.   Claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22 stand finally rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to                     
          particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.                  
               3. Claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22 stand finally rejected                  
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto in                
          view of Yamada.                                                             



                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007