Appeal No. 1998-0669 Page 11
Application No. 08/507,194
In view of the ambiguity of the reference’s disclosure
and the operation of known word processing programs, we are
not persuaded that teachings from the prior art would appear
to have suggested the claimed limitation of using image
processing to recognize empty space next to a column in an
image of a document. The examiner’s interpretation amounts to
speculation or an unfounded assumption; he has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejections of claims 13, 14, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007