Appeal No. 1007-0016
Application No. 08/162,333
to those skilled in the art that applicant had invented the
subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder,
736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the present instance, we note that the relevant
language of independent claim 11 recites:
... high frequency filter means for
receiving the edge region from the edge
extraction means and extracting a high
frequency component of the input image
from the edge region;...
We agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 10) that none of
Appellant’s drawing figures unambiguously illustrate that the
high frequency filter receives an input from the edge
extraction means as claimed. Notwithstanding this fact, our
review of Appellant’s entire disclosure reveals that the
description at pages 20 and 21 of the specification clearly
indicates that high frequency components are extracted from
edge point regions as a result of the application of edge
region signals to a high frequency filter. In our view,
Appellant is correct in the assertion that the originally
filed specification provides written description support for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007