Appeal No. 2006-1618
Application No. 10/046,797
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references
[brief, page 14]. Specifically, appellant argues that no objective evidence exists
establishing that Kim or Suzuki suffer from an inability to process complicated
shapes to motivate one to look to teachings of other references [id.]. The
examiner responds that Ikezawa expressly provides such a motivation -- namely
to better process complicated images by allowing user editing [answer, pages 9
and 10].
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 28. As the examiner
indicates, Ikezawa discloses a contour detection method that enables the user to
designate a rectangular range (i.e., the height and width) of a given area for
contours with complicated shapes [Ikezawa, col. 11, lines 60-66]. We find that
this teaching is reasonably combinable with Kim and Suzuki essentially for the
reasons stated by the examiner. Certainly, complex contours are detected in
Kim and Suzuki, and we see no reason why such complex contour detection
would not benefit from the user-definable input feature of Ikezawa. The
examiner's combination of Ikezawa with Kim and Suzuki is therefore proper and
the rejection is therefore sustained.
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, 17,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of
Suzuki and further in view of Catros. Regarding claim 3, the examiner finds that
the claim differs from Kim and Suzuki in calling for using a predetermined
function operable to calculate gradients. The examiner cites Catros as teaching
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007