Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either Hutcheson in
view of Terashita.
Hutcheson discloses a system for identifying people and the
like by comparing an image of them to a large database of
prestored known images. The unidentified input image is obtained
from a video frame grabber. There is no identification
criterion, entered in a keyboard, upon which the computer could
analyze and identify scanned images for selective printing as
required by the claims on appeal. Rather, the search is made on
the basis of the scanned video image. Moreover, Hutcheson makes
prints from a database, not from a film strip.
Terashita discloses a frame by frame printing process which
calculates a print exposure amount for a given frame based on
analysis of the image contained in that frame. There is no
identification criterion upon which the computer could analyze
and identify scanned images for selective printing as required by
the claims on appeal. Rather, each frame is analyzed one at a
time merely to optimize the print of that frame.
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is contained in
the final Office action. After describing the content of
Hutcheson and Terashita, the examiner states that it would have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007