Appeal No. 1997-2406
Application 08/170,651
On page 3 of the Office action of September 6, 1995 (Paper No. 27) , the Examiner's 4
rejection expresses that the admitted prior art teaches the image primitives comprise edges
which are nearly aligned with the principal axes of the filtered pixel array. Specifically, the
Examiner's rejection makes reference to the drawing in Figure 2 and the language in page 2,
lines 16-18 in the Appellant's specification. On page 4 of the same Office action, the
Examiner's rejection expresses that the admitted prior art method fails to disclose choosing N
sample points so as to divide the area of the pixel at substantially N places in the direction of at
least one of the principal axes of the filtered pixel array. The Examiner's rejection then applies
Vreeswijk as teaching this missing claimed limitation. The Examiner's rejection makes reference
to Vreeswijk, column 18, lines 53-56, and Figure 4B2. The Examiner's rejection states, “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, at the time the invention was made, to
combine the teaching of Vreeswijk et al. to the admitted prior art technique to select a class of
image feature for filtering and adaptively use a sampling pattern of N sample points so as to
ensure substantially N times oversampling of the selected class of image feature.”
On page 10 of the brief, Appellant argues that neither Vreeswijk, Fuchs, nor Cook
mentions any need to avoid artifacts produced by image edges nearly aligned with one or the
4We note that the Examiner’s Answer refers us to Paper Number 27. We note further that the
Final Action, mailed March 4, 1996, (Paper No. 29) refers us to the Office action, Paper Number 27.
We discourage this practice.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007