Appeal No. 2000-2066
Application No. 08/829,471
After reviewing the disclosure of Sekine in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with the Examiner’rs
position as stated in the Answer. As alluded to by the Examiner
(Answer, page 6), Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of claim 8. As the Examiner noted, there is nothing in
the claim language which requires a variation in image sharpness to
be performed manually or automatically. Further, we find no
language in the claim which requires a variation in sharpness of
the same image as argued by Appellants. We agree with the Examiner
(id. at 6) that “[a]s long as the different interpolations applied
to different portions result in different degrees of sharpness, the
sharpness ‘varies’ and the requirements of the claim language have
been met.” In other words, when Sekine selects a particular
interpolation method based on a determination that an interpolation
point falls in a flat portion of an image, the result of the
application of the selected interpolation technique is an image
whose sharpness is varied with respect to an image edge portion.
We do not totally disagree with Appellants’ contention that
the interpolation selection technique described by Sekine differs
from that disclosed by Appellants. It is apparent to us, however,
that any distinctions that might be associated with such
differences are not set forth in appealed claim 8. In our view,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007