Appeal No. 2000-1499
Application No. 08/825,474
explains that since Yamaoka discloses, at column 3, lines 44-56
and column 5, lines 19-24, that block noise is a “visual
problem,” this indicates a “humanly perceptible” trait. The
examiner further explains that if it is understood that Yamaoka
does not provide for this feature, then “official notice” is
taken of using humanly perceptible metrics [answer-page 8].
Merely because Yamaoka may indicate that “block noise” may
provide a visual problem, this does not teach or suggest the use
of a perceptual metric as representative of a prediction as to
how a human eye would perceive a reconstructed image of an
encoded image.
Moreover, we do not find persuasive the examiner’s reliance
on “official notice.” It is a reversible error when an examiner
judicially notices a feature as being old in the art and such is
challenged and the examiner fails to cite the well known thing on
which he/she relies. Ex parte Nouel, 158 USPQ 237 (PTO Bd. Of
App 1967). As is apparent by their arguments, appellants clearly
challenge this finding of “official notice” but the examiner has
failed to provide evidence of this “well known” use of humanly
perceptible metrics in a system for optimizing encoding of
images.
Further, even assuming, arguendo, that some teaching of a
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007