Appeal No. 1998-0741
Application 08/194,279
enlargement process.” We note that at page 4 of the final
rejection, the examiner stated,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that Nakajima and Nakamura can apply the
scanning detection using forms of 4 and 8 directions of
pixels as taught by Chen because doing so would
efficiently enlarge the image in the bounding box and
simultaneously avoid the image quality deterioration.
We agree with appellants that no proper motivation for
combining the teachings of the above three references has been
set forth by the examiner. The aforementioned statement in
the final rejection sets forth no motivation for combining
Nakajima and Nakamura. Furthermore, the examiner has provided
no explanation in support of his conclusion to the effect that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
combining Chen with Nakajima and Nakamura would efficiently
enlarge the image in the bounding box and simultaneously avoid
image quality deterioration. The examiner has not drawn
attention to any disclosure in the prior art or given any
rationale which supports his conclusion. Accordingly, in the
final rejection the examiner did not establish his burden of
showing some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007