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