Appeal No. 2006-3040 Page 6
Application No. 10/261,196
second point argued above, the examiner responds that the resolution in Bick is increased
at element 116, and therefore, the feature extraction step is performed at a successively
higher resolution than the segmenting step. The examiner notes that the claimed reduced
image resolution can be read on the original image which has a lower resolution than
when the second segmentation takes place [answer, pages 13-19].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, and therefore, of
all the claims subject to this rejection. We agree with the examiner that the segmenting
step of claim 1 is met by the feature extraction step of Bick when claim 1 is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation. Bick and the incorporated patent to Giger et al. both
teach that feature extraction was generally considered in the art to be a form of
segmentation done at a higher resolution. Appellants’ specification has provided no
definition contrary to this general understanding within the art. Therefore, appellants’
argument notwithstanding, we find that Bick teaches two segmentation steps as recited in
claim 1. We also agree with the examiner that the series embodiment shown in Figure
1B of Bick teaches that an image is successively subjected to feature extraction wherein
the resolution is increased for each subsequent measurement. Since each feature
extraction iteration in Bick constitutes a step of segmenting, and since each step of
segmenting is performed at a higher resolution, Bick clearly teaches performing at least
two such steps wherein the first step is performed at a lower resolution than the second
step. We agree with the examiner that this series operation in Bick meets the invention as
broadly recited in claim 1.
We now consider the examiner’s rejections of the claims based on the additional
teachings of Vining and Gur. The examiner has indicated how the invention of these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007