Appeal No. 20004-0226
Application No. 09/216,184
value. But, the examiner considers it to have been obvious “that if the user is only
concerned with setting quality priorities with non-zero values in the interest matrix as
shown in Figure 21 of Azadegan . . . then the zero priority value within the interest
matrix of Azadegan . . . may certainly be taken out from the interest matrix entry”
(answer-page 3). The examiner further contends that the removal of an entry within the
interest matrix of Azadegan “is certainly well within one skilled in the art and doing so
would seem to even result in a less beneficial system wherein a feature would be
deleted from use” (answer-page 3). The examiner then concludes that it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan, “having the Azadegan . . . reference in front of
him/her and the general knowledge of priority value selections for quality viewing
purposes, would have had no difficulty in modifying the interest matrix system of
Azadegan . . . by providing only the non-zero values to be selected by the user to mark
the quality of regions within a frame if it is a requirement for the user to make quality
changes to regions as claimed” (answer-pages 3-4).
For their part, appellants contend that Azadegan teaches away from the instant
claimed invention because column 34, lines 43-46, of the reference states:
If the user did not want the quality of regions of the frame
to change, these regions would be marked by the user as having
a priority of zero.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007