Appeal No. 1997-0201
Application No. 08/140,318
remains unrebutted by any convincing arguments of Appellant.
A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also
renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
"anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 4 as well as
claims 5, 6, 12, and 14 dependent thereon and not separately
argued by Appellant.
Turning now to a consideration of independent claims 7
and 8, grouped and argued separately by Appellant, we note
that, while we found Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive
with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim
1, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
independent claims 7 and 8. In addition to claiming various
hardware elements (i.e. register, multiplexer, and
accumulator) which constitute the claimed processing units,
these claims also specifically recite the operation of
multiplexing pixel values of odd and even columns of a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007