Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 7, 14 and 24 are prop-
erly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain
the rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejec-
tion of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set
forth infra.
On page 6 of the brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable in view
of Crane and Boone is improper because Crane does not teach
the extraction of an object’s boundary as recited in the
preface of Appellants’ claim 1. However, the Examiner is not
relying on Crane but instead relies on Boone for this teach-
ing.
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner shows that
Crane teaches the method steps of overlapping a slit and the
object in column 2, line 65, through column 3, line 3, as
recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The Examiner further shows
that Crane teaches the method step of rotating the slit rela-
tive to the object in column 3, lines 3-5, as recited in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007