Appeal No. 1997-2406
Application 08/170,651
Before we can address Appellant's arguments, we must first determine the scope of
Appellant's claim 1. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "Analysis begins with a key legal
question what is the invention claimed? . . . Claim interpretation ... will normally control the
remainder of the decisional process." Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561,
1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). Claims
will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756
F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. ) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985).
We note that claim 1 recites:
determining the locations of the N sample points of the basic array in dependence upon
the selected class of image feature so as to ensure substantially N times oversampling of
the selected class of image feature; wherein the selected class of image feature
comprises edges, which are nearly aligned with one of the other of the principal axes of
the filtered pixel array, the locations of the N sample points in the basic array being
chosen so as to divide the area of a pixel of the filtered pixel array at substantially N
places in the direction of at least one of the principal axes of the filtered pixel array.
Upon a careful review of the admitted prior art, we agree with the Appellant that
neither Vreeswijk, Fuchs, nor Cook mentions any need to avoid artifacts produced by image
edges nearly aligned with one or the other of the principal axes of a pixel array. We agree with
the Examiner that the admitted prior art Figure 2 shows edges nearly aligned with a principal
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007