Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
52-59) that "several levels of edge intensifying (or edge
emphasizing) processes suitable for character images and several
levels of smoothing processes suitable for photograph images and
screened dot images can be set by the fuzzy controller" in his
image processing apparatus. Thus, Fujisawa appears to describe
three image classifications. Also, Tanioka, appellant admits
(Brief, page 7), teaches the classification for three separate
classes.
However, since Mita is solely directed to edge versus non-
edge determinations, it is unclear to us how or why the skilled
artisan would modify Mita to include additional image
classifications, regardless of how well-known the use of three
classifications is and regardless of the teachings of Fujisawa or
Tanioka. Such a modification of Mita's system would destroy the
purpose or function thereof. The Federal Circuit has held that
"a proposed modification [is] inappropriate for an obviousness
inquiry when the modification render[s] the prior art reference
inoperable for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)." In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1265-1266 n.12, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Therefore, we cannot accept the examiner's proposed
modification of Mita. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007