Appeal 2007-0757
Application 09/952,249
or implied limitation that an estimate of the average inter-ridge line distance
is calculated rather than looked-up nor do we find an express or implied
limitation that the determination is dynamic or based upon the binary image
which is being analyzed. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance upon the editing or
pruning of Bolle ‘895 does not teach or fairly suggest the recited
“identifying and removing at least some isolated spurs and ridge-connected
spurs may be based, at least in part, on the estimate of the average inter-
ridge line distance” (Br. 5). We disagree with Appellants and find that the
use of the average inter-ridge line distance in the variance or other
calculations would have been based, at least in part, on the estimate of the
average inter-ridge line distance and used in the pruning process as recited
in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot agree with
Appellants. We find that while Appellants may intend the claim limitations
to be interpreted in a manner different from the manner the Examiner has
interpreted the limitations, that does not make the Examiner’s interpretation
of the claim language or the prior art teachings erroneous.
With respect to Appellants’ contention regarding implication or
inherency (Br. 6), we find that the Examiner has set forth the teachings of
the prior art references and the application thereof to the language of the
claims. Here, while not as specific as Appellants may desire the
Examiner’s discussion in the rejection or the discussion of the express
teachings of the reference, we find that “the estimate of the average inter-
ridge line distance” is determined and used in the reduction of spurs or the
pruning process of Bolle ‘895.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013