Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
for the four claims. Appellant also directs our attention to
numerous drawings for the various claim limitations, rather than
a single drawing that shows all of the limitations. Although
there is no requirement that a claim be limited to a single
drawing, the court has said "one skilled in the art, reading the
original specification, must "immediately discern the limitation
at issue" in the claims. Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics
Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
When several elements are claimed with interconnections
therebetween, clearly the most straightforward way to immediately
discern the limitations would be for them to be shown in a single
drawing, or a couple of drawings where the relationship between
them is clearly indicated. With that said, we now turn to
appellant's reading of the claims.
Claim 105 recites (1) a memory storing input image
information, (2)(a) an undersampling circuit (b) coupled to the
memory, (3)(a) a spatial interpolation circuit (b) coupled to the
undersampling circuit and generating information in response to
the undersampled image information, and (4)(a) a temporal
interpolation circuit (b) coupled to the spatial interpolation
circuit and generating information in response to the spatially
interpolated image information. Claim 190 is a process which
parallels claim 105, reciting (1) storing input image information
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007