Appeal No. 96-0654
Application 08/103,207
difference is a problem because the document is not moving.
Therefore, we fail to find any reason to modify the Takagi
teaching as proposed by the Examiner, therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Takagi.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of
Hirahara. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in
view of Toriumi. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Tanimoto.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takagi in view of Kizu. In all of the
rejections, the Examiner argues that the reasons to use either
Hirahara's interpolation teachings or Toriumi interpolation
teachings is to compensate for variations by temporal
amplitude variations due to system noise or other variations
caused by the time sequential images.
Appellant argues on pages 8-14 of the reply brief that
Takagi teaches a document scanner for scanning a non-moving
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007