Appeal No. 2005-0444
Application No. 10/025,671
OPINION
At the outset we note Appellant’s intention that the claims
corresponding to each ground of rejection stand or fall together
as one group (brief, page 6). In accordance with this grouping,
and pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.37, we will limit our review of the
appeal to claims 1, 13 and 15 as the representative claims of
their corresponding groups.
With respect to claim 1, The Examiner relies on Figure 4 of
Honma for teaching the step of decompressing data from the
compressed bitword and on Hsu for implicitly disclosing
synthesized pixels for edge enhancement (final, page 3). The
Examiner further relies on Hyatt and takes the position that the
reference teaches removal of pixels along a horizontal direction
while selecting pixels along the vertical direction (final, page
4).
Appellant argues that neither Hsu nor Hyatt teaches or
suggests the edge enhancement and discarding of pixels in the
direction parallel to the edge while those along a direction
perpendicular to the edge are maintained, as recited in claim 1
(brief, page 12). In particular, Appellant asserts that Hsu uses
dilation and erosion operations to add or remove pixels from the
boundaries in the original image instead of discarding pixels for
decompressing image data (id.). Appellant further asserts that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007