Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
are fully met by Thomas, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 13, 28, and 37.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39,5 Appellant argues that
Thomas does not disclose extracting a component of distortion, much less
applying the extracted component to a second image (Br. 12). The
Examiner contends that because Thomas’ editor can create figures such as
lines and polygons, the reference “implies a plurality of objects can exist on
a display” (Answer 18).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 29, 30,
38, and 39. Significantly, claim 14 effectively requires applying the at least
one component to two images: a first image and a second image.
Independent claim 1 recites that the extracted component is applied to a
second area of the first image. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and recites
applying the extracted component to a second image. Thus, dependent claim
14 effectively requires applying the component to a second image in
addition to the first image.
Turning to Thomas, nothing in the reference expressly or inherently
teaches this limitation. At best, Thomas applies an extracted distortion
component to a single image – not multiple images. Even if Thomas’ editor
can edit and display multiple objects as the Examiner alleges, such a
multiple-image display hardly requires applying a distortion component
extracted from one image and applying that extracted component to the same
image and another image as claimed.
5 Appellant indicates that claim 14 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 12).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013