Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
that by selecting a slit as the reference image, the angular
cross-correlation algorithm as disclosed in columns 6 through
9 will extract the object boundary. Therefore, we find that
Boone would have suggested to those skilled in the art to
modify the Crane optical pattern recognition device shown in
Figure 3 to use the Boone algorithm to extract the boundary of
the object as recited in Appellants’ claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Boone does not provide
an enabling detail of the use of a slit. However, Appellants
have not provided any evidence in the record that Boone is not
enabling. Furthermore, the test of obviousness is not whether
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the primary reference's structure, nor whether the
claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references; rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In regard to claim 2, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has failed to show any evidence in the art that those
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007