Appeal No. 1997-1981
Application No. 08/298,547
Appellants argue that claim 5 is deemed allowable for the same reason as claims 1
and 2 and merely paraphrases claim language. We note that claim 5 differs from claim 2,
but does refer to a frequency response with a determined number of taps per line. The
examiner has not addressed the claim language with respect to the number of taps in
claim 5, but we note that the frequency response would have had a number of taps per line.
Moreover, the language of claim 5 does not require a step that the number of taps be
determined or computed. Since no further arguments have been presented by appellants,
we will sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Appellants argue that claim 6 should be allowable for the same reasons as claim 5
and that the prior art references do not suggest “the use of the Park-McClellan algorithm in
connection with generating filter components based on optimal frequency response or in
connection with an image scaling filter.” (See brief at pages 9-10.) We disagree with
appellants. The examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and appellants
have not rebutted it with evidence or shown error in the prima facie case. Therefore, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 6.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007