Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
teaches the claimed invention.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 8 and 31.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8
and 31.
III. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 14 and 26
as Being Unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose and
Dugad Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 26, Appellants argue
at pages 33 and 34 of the Appeal Brief that the Vetro, Ng and
Bose combination is deficient, and it does not teach the claimed
invention, as recited in the independent claims from which claims
14 and 26 directly depend. Appellants also argue that Dugad4
does not cure these deficiencies. As noted in the discussion of
claim 1 above, we find that no such deficiencies exist in the
rejection, and that the Vetro, Ng and Bose combination teaches
the limitations in question. Consequently, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose and Dugad also
teaches the claimed invention.
appear substantially uniform on a low resolution monitor screen.
4 Dugad is relied upon for its teaching of bilinear interpolation scheme for
down-sampling.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007