Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
323, 324, 327, 330, 331, 334, 336 through 338, 341 through 346,
349, 351 through 353, 356 through 361, 364, 366 through 368, 371,
374 through 377, 379, 382, 384, 389, 390, and 392 through 395 and
reverse the enablement rejection of the same claims.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph, Written Description Rejection
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 11-12):
The specification is simply an amalgamation of
permutations of possibilities of things that might be
able to be performed without any details to indicate
that Appellant actually had possession of any of the
possible systems. Nowhere in the lengthy specification
does Appellant actually describe a complete and
functioning system that would correspond to the claimed
subject matter.
The examiner states (Answer, pages 12-13) that the claims are
directed to combinations of "undersampling," "temporal
interpolation," "spatial interpolation," and "spatial filtering"
of image information, all of which are mentioned throughout the
specification. However, according to the examiner, "there is no
disclosure of actually combining these disparate items into one
complete integrated system as is now being claimed." Stated
another way (Answer, page 15), "[w]hile many of the individually
claimed terms do appear at various places in the original
specification, these sections do not reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that Appellant had possession of the
claimed invention (specifically the claimed combination of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007