Appeal No. 95-0792
Application No. 07/828,092
Gold. Appellant argues on page 8 of the brief that with
respect to method claims 1 through 4, 7, 10 and 12, Gold fails
to disclose the claimed steps of partitioning a multi-
dimensional image into overlapping multi-dimensional regions
and applying a predetermined weighting function to the image
elements within each region. Appellant further argues on page
9 that with respect to the apparatus claims 15, 17, 19, 22 and
23, Gold fails to disclose masking means for partitioning a
multi-dimensional image into overlapping multi-dimensional
regions.
On page 10 of the answer, the Examiner argues that Gold
teaches partitioning an image comprising a plurality of image
elements into overlapping regions. The Examiner directs our
attention to the teachings found in column 8, lines 10-29, and
Figure 7 of Gold. On page 18 of the answer, the Examiner
states that it is reasonable to interpret Figure 7 as showing
overlapping multi-dimensional regions.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007