Appeal No. 1998-2989
Application No. 08/566,987
With respect to claim 10, the examiner relies on the combination of Bhargava, Cornyn
and Stockholm. Appellant argues that the examiner admits that Bhargava and Cornyn do
not teach the column-wise and row-wise analysis of the pixels. (See brief at page 20.)
The examiner disputes that there is an admission. (See answer at page 19.) Appellant
argues that Stockholm discloses that the scanning of pairs of lines row-wise and pairs in
the column-wise direction. We agree with appellant. While the examiner disputes that
there is no admission as to Cornyn, the examiner has not provided any specific teaching or
line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to use row-wise and column-wise analysis of pixels to form a grouping
of like valued pixels as recited in the language of claims 10 and 11. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11.
With respect to claim 15, the examiner relies upon the teachings of Ghosh in view of
Keith. We disagree with the examiner. In our view, the combination of Ghosh and Keith
would not teach or suggest the invention as claimed because neither Ghosh nor Keith
suggests the steps of identifying the orthogonally shaped regions with the common state
as recited in step (a) and encoding the state and size of the orthogonally shaped region as
recited in step (c). Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and its
dependent claims 16-20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007