Appeal No. 98-1396
Application 08/300,666
parent independent claim 24, which was not rejected). From a review of the specification
at page 15, paragraph 3, page 16, paragraph 2, and the prior art, it is clear that the "scale
factor" is disclosed to be an input to select the stored algorithm to be used in scaling the
pixel data. Therefore, this reason for the § 112 rejection is reversed.
With respect to issue (c), the parallel input of the addresses to the ROMs, it is clear
from a review of figure 1 and the supporting description in the specification that the
purpose of the input of data in parallel to the ROMs is to have the stored data addressed
simultaneously for output and subsequent processing by the adder and latch. The parallel
input of the data to the ROMs would have been clear to skilled
artisans with respect to proper operation thereof. Therefore, this reason for the § 112
rejection is reversed.
With respect to issue (d), "variable" and "flexible," we do not find these terms in the
rejected claims or the parent independent claim 24. Therefore, there is no basis for
the rejection in the language of the claims. We do find the claim language in
independent claims 23 and 25 which were not rejected by the Examiner. We find that
these are merely asserted statements of advantages of the invention which would not be
given patentable weight unless there is some structure in the language of the claim which
provides for the functionality of the advantage. The disclosed functionality is provided by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007