Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
video data at column 1, lines 6-10, while the reference teaches
an interpolator at column 6, lines 26-39.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because, in our view, the examiner simply has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation by merely
pointing to 19 lines within the disclosure of Westerman and
alleging that all of the claimed subject matter is disclosed
therein.
Appellant does not argue much, but appellant does argue that
Westerman is devoid of the step of, or means for, “comparing said
image portion with said interpolation” and the examiner has not
convincingly shown that Westerman does, indeed, disclose this
subject matter. While Westerman mentions “interpolation” and an
“interpolator” in the cited portions of the reference, we find no
suggestion, at either column 1, lines 1-5, or column 6, lines 26-
39, the only portions of Westerman cited by the examiner, of
“comparing said image-portion with said interpolation,” as
required by the claim.
The only response by the examiner, at page 10 of the answer,
is to assert that a subtraction step is a comparative step. Not
only has the examiner not pointed to the specific portion of
Westerman relied on for the “subtraction step,” but, more
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007