Appeal No. 1997-4067
Application 08/285,324
description of the Background of the Invention
(specification, page 2): "Normally, this identification
process [i.e., segmentation] is necessary so that the
picture aspect of the document can be screened and the text
aspect of the document can be threshold." That is, there is
effectively no error diffusion for pixels in a text region.
Instead, the image signal is quantized by a predetermined
threshold value (col. 8, lines 1-11). The terms eA, eB, eC,
eD (col. 6, lines 25-30) are only for the case when EB is
not zero (a photograph region). For these reasons, we
conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 14 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-15 on the ground of
obviousness-type double patenting is reversed.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007