Appeal No. 1999-2058
Application 08/433,643
that limitations are not present in the combination without
addressing the Examiner's reasons do not satisfy this
requirement. It is not the Board's function to make
Appellants' arguments for them. Because Appellants have not
specified the error in the Examiner's rejection, the rejection
of claim 5 is sustained pro forma.
Claim 10
Appellants argue that while Echerer discloses
magnification, "Echerer et al. does not teach or suggest
memory means which includes temporary memory means, selected
image data means, synthesized data memory means and window
memory means, as required in dependent claim 10" (Br9). The
Examiner finds that Poulsen discloses these features (EA8).
The rejection in the final rejection overly simplifies
the limitations of claim 10 into three functions (mapping,
changing the size of a part of the image, and synthesizing the
image data and the graphic data) and does not address the
specific claimed structures and functional relationships. We
see that the claimed "temporary memory means for
two-dimensionally mapping and temporarily storing image data
stored in the image data storing means" (corresponding to
- 19 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007