Appeal No. 2000-1498
Application No. 08/721,623
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Russ.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and 16)
and the answer (paper number 15) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain all of the rejections of record.
All of the claims on appeal require “filtering said detected
image activity values to reduce the variation in image activity
values between groups of adjacent regions of said image.”
Appellants argue (brief, pages 9 and 10; reply brief, pages 2 and
3) that Sugiyama filters class values as opposed to activity
values. Inasmuch as the Figure 4 embodiment of Sugiyama converts
the activity value A to a class value C, and then filters the
class value C, we agree with appellants’ argument that this
embodiment of Sugiyama does not filter “said detected image
activity values [A] to reduce the variation in image activity
values between groups of adjacent regions of said image.” On the
other hand, we agree with the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 8)
that the Figure 11 embodiment discloses the use of a filter
(i.e., a multi-tap spatial filter formed by LPF 22 and HPF 23) at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007