Appeal No. 1997-4047 Page 15
Application No. 08/309,508
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the
prior art would have suggested either the “means for
compensating at least one of said converted Y,Cr,Cb color
signals” of claim 2 or the “means for compensating Y component
of converted Y,Cr,Cb color signals” of claim 3. The examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. His rejection of claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007