Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
areas. Furthermore, the smaller, scaled-down images in the rows behind the
front row inherently have less “image data” (i.e., fewer pixels) than their
larger-size counterparts. Regarding claim 5, we agree with the Examiner
that the center portion of the images in the second row is displayed.
Although other portions of those images displayed along with the center
portion, we note that the claim merely calls for the displayed image data
portion to include a center portion of the image. Such a recitation does not
preclude displaying additional portions so long as the center portion is
included. For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 5.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-6, and
9 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013