Appeal No. 2001-1337
Application No. 08/864,944
chrominance color space. And Mutz clearly teach[es] a modified
pure luminance component assigned back to the working
pixel . . . .”
The Examiner also responds (id. at page 10) that “the
purpose of the Thresholding procedure 46 [Appellants’ disclosure
Fig. 2] is that [it] converts a pure luminance component of
pixels. Thus, any pure luminance data including Y would be
converted by the Thresholding procedure.”
We disagree with the Examiner’s position. We do not find,
nor does the Examiner point out, where in Mutz is the conversion
occurring from an RGB color space to luminance chrominance color
space. Claim 1 requires the first step of converting to binary
data per pixel the luminance (Y) component in the luminance
chrominance color space while leaving the other component such as
chrominance unchanged. So, even if the Thresholding which is
part of the method claim 1 is admitted to be old, the above
initial step of converting is not shown by the combination of
the references suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Mutz in view of the
admitted prior art. Since the other independent claims, 12 and
13 also contain the same or similar limitations as claim 1, their
rejection over Mutz and the admitted prior art is also not
sustainable. The rejection of the dependent claims 2-4, 6-11 and
14-20 also falls with the rejection of the independent claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007