Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
must also be “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007). “[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82
USPQ2d at 1396.
We begin our analysis by first addressing Appellants’ contention that
applying Kida’s technique to only some of the subfields would require an
increase in the frame memory, and would not convert the interlaced scan
signal to a progressive scan signal (See Br. 8, ¶ 2). We note that the
negative limitation of not converting the interlaced scan signal to a
progressive scan is not recited in the claims. Regarding a requirement to
increase frame memory (as teaching away), we note that Kida specifically
teaches that it is not necessary to increase the capacity of the frame memory:
From the foregoing, in the interlace video signal for the moving
picture, the pixel data are written on the two row electrodes at
the same time. Thus, the amount of pixel data is reduced half
compared with the non-interlace video signal, and the address
period is also reduced half. Therefore, even if the number of
1 (See Wani, col. 3, ll. 45-49).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013