Appeal No. 1007-0016
Application No. 08/162,333
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant (Answer, page 6) that no ambiguity or
lack of clarity exists in the claim language, i.e., the
receipt of edge region signals by the high frequency filter is
set forth with the required specificity. It is our view that
the skilled artisan, having considered the specification in
its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope
of the invention recited in claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 is not sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 11, 13-16
and 18-22 as being unpatentable over Takemoto
in view of Yamada.
As the basis for the obviousness rejection, the Examiner
proposes to modify the image sharpening system of Takemoto by
relying on Yamada to supply the missing teaching of an
integration means for integrating the extracted high frequency
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007