Appeal No. 2005-0200
Application No. 09/840,817
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of de
Haan to disclose every limitation in independent claims 1, 5, 9,
13, and 17 as is required to support a rejection based on
anticipation. Appellant’s assertions (Brief, pages 8 and 9;
Reply Brief, pages 2 and 3) focus on the contention that, in
contrast to the claimed invention which requires the enhancement
of a characteristic “other than position” of a selected pixel
region of video information, the disclosure of the de Haan
reference is limited to the determination of a positional
relationship among fields.
After reviewing the de Haan reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s
position as expressed in the Briefs. We agree with Appellant
that, to whatever extent de Haan discloses the enhancement of a
video characteristic, such enhancement is limited to a
displacement, i.e., a position, of a block of pixels. We further
agree with Appellant that, although the Examiner has made
reference to the candidate vectors C in equation (26) at page
373 of de Haan in section VI which discusses smoothing, these
candidate vectors are displacement vectors used for enhancing a
displacement or positional video characteristic.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007