Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
taught by Igarashi, to make the current invention
[answer, page 3].
It is appellant’s position, with regard to claims 1, 8-11,
16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41, that while Igarashi teaches using
field and frame data, Igarashi teaches that the field and frame
data are used separately, while the instant claims require the
combination of both field and frame data.
We understand the difference between the instant disclosed
invention and that shown by Igarashi. However, taking instant
claim 1 as exemplary of the Group I claims (grouped together by
appellant with claims 8-11, 16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41), as
claimed, all that is called for is forming de-interlaced video
data corresponding with said interlaced video data (which
Igarashi clearly discloses) in accordance with said determined
motion “by combining frame data and field data of said interlaced
video data.” Igarashi clearly discloses both frame data and
field data of the interlaced video data, as shown in Figure 3 of
the patent. Thus, the issue is whether Igarashi taught, or
suggested, the combination of the frame data and field data, as
presently claimed.
Since claim 1 is rather broad in scope, requiring, in our
view, only that the de-interlaced video data be formed “by
combining frame data and field data . . .,” we agree with the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007