Appeal No. 1998-0741
Application 08/194,279
would have led that individual to combine the relevant
teachings of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The examiner’s conclusion in the answer to the effect
that motivation to combine the teachings of Nakajima, Nakamura
and Chen would have been to improve the document image
enlargement process is essentially the same as that which he
argued in the final rejection for combining Chen with Nakajima
and Nakamura and is not persuasive for essentially the same
reasons.
We also agree with appellants that even if the references
are combined, they do not teach or suggest the claimed
invention. The examiner relies on Nakajima at column 12,
lines 18-20, for a pattern detector for detecting a form of a
pattern of reference pixels. We agree with the examiner’s
interpretation of Nakajima. However, the claims relate to
detecting means for detecting a form of a connective pattern
of reference pixels adjoining a marked pixel. Whereas
Nakajima has no marked pixel, it cannot be said that the
reference meets the limitation of independent claims 2 and 3
calling for “connective pattern detecting means for detecting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007