Appeal No. 2000-2066
Application No. 08/829,471
Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the
claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no
basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, since all of
the claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Sekine,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 8 is
sustained.
Turning to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 9 based on the combination of Sekine and
Perlmutter, we sustain this rejection as well. In addressing the
limitations of claim 9, which set forth a spline interpolation
process for varying the sharpness of the image flat portion, the
Examiner points to the disclosure of such a technique in
Perlmutter. We find no arguments from Appellants that convince us
of any error in the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 5) of the
obviousness to the skilled artisan of selecting a spline
interpolation process on determination of an interpolation point
falling in a flat portion of an image. As pointed out by the
Examiner, the claimed sharpness variability requirement is provided
by Sekine. The spline interpolation teachings of Perlmutter are
applied in combination with Sekine to provide a basis for the
obviousness rejection. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007