Appeal No. 2005-0200
Application No. 09/840,817
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of de Haan, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, nor of claims 2, 4, 6, 8,
10, 12, 14, and 18 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 19,
and 20 based on de Haan, we do not sustain this rejection as
well. In addressing the language of the rejected claims, the
Examiner refers to the discussion at pages 372-373 of de Haan
which describes the use of “penalties” that are added to error
functions which are related to the length of a difference vector
between an evaluated candidate vector and neighboring vectors.
We find nothing, however, in the cited portion of de Haan, or
elsewhere in the document, which would overcome the deficiencies
of de Haan in disclosing enhancement of video characteristics
“other than position” as discussed supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007