Appeal No. 1998-0940
Application No. 08/085,605
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In a new ground of rejection, entered in the principal
answer (paper No. 13), the examiner first states that Kadowaki
discloses the invention as substantially claimed except that
Kadowaki only teaches enlarging resolution to a second higher
resolution in some unspecified manner rather than generating a
second higher resolution by “interpolating,” as claimed. The
examiner relies on Shimura for generating a second higher
resolution by such “interpolating” and holds that it would have
been obvious to choose interpolating for the unspecified type of
enlarging in the system of Kadowaki “for the advantages
associated with interpolation such as maintaining or increasing
image quality with minimal processing overhead” (principal
answer, page 5).
Alternatively, the examiner finds that Suzuki discloses the
invention as substantially claimed but for the generation of a
second higher resolution by interpolating. Again, the examiner
relies on Shimura to provide such a teaching and holds that it
would have been obvious to combine Suzuki and Shimura “for the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007