Ex Parte Yamada - Page 11

               Appeal 2007-1733                                                                            
               Application 09/978,275                                                                      
               teachings with knowledge of the prior art to thereby adjust Vuylsteke’s filter              
               unit with the value of a detail image to adaptively adjust the filter unit.  This           
               combination would predictably result in a noise reduction system that fine-                 
               tunes the filter unit to reproduce images that matches the original signal as               
               closely as possible.  It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar                  
               elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does                    
               no more than yield predictable results.”  KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739,                         
               82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).                                   
                                                OTHER ISSUES                                               
                      The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body,                      
               rather than a place of initial examination.  We have rejected claim 1 above                 
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and under our authority in 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).                   
               We have, however, not reviewed claims 2 through 13, 20, 21, and 37                          
               through 41 to the extent necessary to determine whether these claims are                    
               patentable over Vuylsteke.  We leave it to the Examiner to determine the                    
               appropriateness of any further rejections based on this reference.                          
                                        CONCLUSION OF LAW                                                  
                      On the record before us, the Examiner has failed to establish that                   
               Vuylsteke’s disclosure anticipates claims 1 through 3, 7 through 13, 20, 21,                
               and 37 through 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  Further, the Examiner has                      
               failed to establish that Vuylsteke’s disclosure taken in combination with                   
               Aach and/or Wood renders claims 4 through 6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.                    
               § 103(a).                                                                                   





                                                    11                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013