Appeal No. 1997-2707
Application No. 08/411,127
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants sole argument is that the examiner‘s rejection is based upon improper
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with
appellants. The examiner has set forth two separate teachings in the prior art and
asserted that neither of the two references teach or fairly suggest that one field of
chrominance information is applied to both luminance fields. (See answer at page 4.)
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious with the two teaching and the
general knowledge of chrominance and luminance field processing to devise the claimed
invention based upon the rationale that it was well known to desire more pleasant viewing.
Appellants argue that the examiner has relied upon improper hindsight reconstruction to
reject claim 1. We agree with appellants. Absent some teaching or suggestion in the
prior art references or some convincing line of reasoning derived from that knowledge in
the relevant art, we find no motivation to modify the prior art teaching to arrive at the
claimed invention. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness.
When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the
claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007