Appeal No. 2004-2147
Application No. 10/241,556
13/10, 14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sayed and Coward.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 19, 2003) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Apr. 2, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Feb. 18, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed Jun. 2, 2004) for appellant’s position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
In accordance with appellant’s asserted grouping of claims (Brief at 3-4), and
consistent with the rules in effect at the time of filing of the Brief, we will select a
representative claim from each group. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15-18 over Sayed
Appellant argues that the “zooming” described by Sayed does not necessarily
include a pixel density adjustment. As such, the pixel density stays the same when
zooming. Appellant also submits that Sayed is ambiguous with respect to how the CCD
charges for the input image (e.g., Fig. 5) are processed to output an image to the
computer display. According to appellant, “the number of pixels may differ, but the pixel
density of the computer need not change, as the increase in pixel quantity is
compensated by image size.” (Brief at 6.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007