Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
Appellants’ claim 1. On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner
states that Crane does not disclose calculating for each
rotation position an area of overlap of the slit and the
object versus an angle between the slit and the object.
However, the Examiner points to Boone for this teaching. In
particular, the Examiner states that Boone teaches calculating
for each rotation position an area of over-lap of an image and
an object versus an angle between the image and the object in
equation (22) disclosed in column 9. The Examiner further
states that Boone suggests the use of a slit in column 10,
lines 15-18, to implement this algorithm. The Examiner
argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the Crane method to include the
Boone calculation.
We note that the Appellants have not argued that
the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Crane and Boone is
improper. Appellants do argue that the references do not meet
the Appellants’ limitation of a method for extracting the
boundary of an object as stated in the preface of claim 1.
However, we find that Boone teaches in column 10, lines 15-20,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007