Appeal No. 1998-0292
Application No. 08/209,633
on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
Analysis
At the outset, we note that according to Appellants [brief,
page 8], claims 1 to 11 stand or fall together, and claims 12 to
22 stand or fall together. Nevertheless, in the body of the
brief, Appellants argue the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
§ 103 separately, and we will treat those rejections
accordingly.
We take claim 1 as the representative claim. The Examiner
contends [answer, pages 3 to 4] that all the elements of claim 1
are shown by Burke. Appellants argue [brief, pages 8 to 9] that
“[a] window is displaced ... over the histogram display in order
to define the gray scale value region which should be presented
in expanded form.... By contrast, in the subject matter of the
claims on appeal, it is not just an excerpt of an image, but
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007