Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte KANEKO et al. - Page 15
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte KANEKO et al. - Page 15
Appeal No. 1999-2058
Application 08/433,643
been shown to be in error. The rejection of claims 1, 11, 13,
15, and 17 is sustained.
Claims 2, 12, 14, 16, and 18
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further recites "image
area outline specifying means for specifying an outline of the
image area to be quantitatively analyzed" and the image area
specifying means specifies an image area having a density
between two thresholds in the image contained within the
outline.
Appellants argue (Br8):
Neither Maayan, Poulsen et al. or Endo et al.
teaches or suggests image area specifying means arranged
to specify an image area having a density equal to or
higher than the lower limit value of image density and
equal to less than the upper limit value of image density
respectively set by lower and upper limit setting means,
within an outlined image area, as defined in dependent
claim 2.
The Examiner finds that Maayan and Poulsen do not show
specifying an outline of the image area, but that Endo shows
this feature at column 2, lines 3-24, where the electronic pen
specifies which pattern will be displayed.
We do not follow the Examiner's reasoning. Endo is
directed to converting a manually drawn sketch into a
- 15 -
Page: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
