Appeal No. 2000-2066
Application No. 08/829,471
With respect to independent claim 8, the Examiner indicates
(Answer, page 4) how the various limitations are read on the
disclosure of Sekine. In particular, in addressing the variable
sharpness feature of claim 8, the Examiner points to the
description of the selection of the first and second interpolation
techniques at column 2, lines 28-35 and 54-64 of Sekine. In our
view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response focus on their contention
(Brief, pages 8 and 9; Reply Brief, pages 1-3) that the
interpolation selection technique described by Sekine does not
provide for the ability “...to vary the sharpness of the same
image.” (Brief, page 8). In Appellants’ view, the disclosed
automatic selection of interpolation methods in Sekine cannot
provide for a variation in image sharpness as claimed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007