Appeal No. 1999-0858
Application 08/562,429
so-called 3 X 3 interpolation window 710 moves through an input image 720. Our
understanding of this reference from our study of it leads us to agree with appellants' views
that there is no claimed selection surrounding picture elements corresponding to the
detected amount of the characteristic previously determined in the first clause in the body
of each independent claim on appeal.
On this basis alone, the rejection must be reversed. We therefore see no need to
arbitrate whether appellants explicitly or implicitly admitted that Coward teaches flatness
determinations or any degree of a flatness determination. Flatness determinations per se
are not pertinent to the issue because each independent claim recites in a broader way
what appellants disclose as a flatness determination by the recited determination of
detecting an amount of a characteristic. The examiner's “micro-structure” analysis
beginning at page 8 of the answer goes well beyond a fair reading of the teachings and
suggestions of this reference regarding this feature since it is not discussed to any
meaningful extent in the reference itself. We therefore cannot agree with the examiner's
apparent views that this “micro-structure” discussion beginning at the middle of column 5 is
a measure of an indication of a degree of flatness and thus provides an ability to detect an
amount of a characteristic as broadly claimed, let alone the additional claimed feature of
selecting surrounding picture elements corresponding to the detected amount of the
characteristic.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007