Appeal No. 1998-0634
Application 08/455,667
Reply Brief (Paper No. 36) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for
a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together with
claim 11 being treated as the representative claim (Br4). The
Examiner counters that claim 38 is the broadest independent
claim (EA10). Appellant responds that each limitation in
claim 11 finds correspondence in claim 38 and provides a table
showing the correspondence (RBr2). While we see problems with
claim 38, as noted in the new grounds of rejection infra, we
agree with Appellant that claim 38 requires, expressly or
inferentially, all the limitations of claim 11. For example,
claim 11 recites "input means for inputting an image signal
consisting of a plurality of pixels," and claim 38 recites "an
input image signal comprising said plurality of pixels";
although claim 38 does not expressly recite inputting the
image signal with an input means, the phrase "input image
signal" implicitly require the image signal to be input
somehow. In addition, we agree with Appellant's argument
(RBr3) that the key features of claim 11 of detecting the
degree of correlation between plural multi-pixel units,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007