Appeal No. 97-0181
Application No. 08/245,613
respectively inside and outside of the area of said image cell in said pixel
data;
(b) resolving said ambiguity to determine the position of said cell edge
crossing along said axis by referring a first sequence of gray level values for
a group of successive pixels including said reference pixel to a look up
facility, said look up facility responsive to different sequences of gray level
values to enable resolution of said ambiguity based on the order and relative
magnitudes of gray level values of said first sequence . . .
We agree with appellants. The Examiner merely has found some of the parts of the
invention, made a line of reasoning concerning the claimed invention and concluded that
the use of a look up table in the claimed invention would have been obvious. We disagree
with the Examiner in view of our discussion above with respect to claim 22 concerning the
claim limitation directed to resolving the ambiguity based upon the magnitude and the
order of the gray level values.
Similarly, Batterman and DeForest do not teach or suggest the claim limitation
directed to resolving the ambiguity based upon the magnitude and the order of the gray
level values as set forth in independent claims 22, 25 or 29. Therefore, we will not sustain
the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, 11 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Batterman in view of Longacre; claims 2-5, 7-11 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Batterman in view of Klancnik; claims13-16, 18, 20 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Longacre in view of DeForest; claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Longacre in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007