Appeal No. 1999-0035
Application No. 08/661,261
disclosure of Graham, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, as well as claim 5
dependent on claim 1, can not be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 8 and
independent claims 9 and 10 based on the combination of Graham
and Liston,
we do not sustain this rejection as well. It is apparent from
the Examiner’s analysis that Liston has been combined with
Graham for the sole purpose of addressing the claimed feature
of terminating a high resolution scan if the displayed high
resolution data is of unacceptable quality. Our review of
Liston reveals that it is directed to the compression of high
resolution scanned image data from a copier if screen
resolution does not permit full display. We find no
disclosure in Liston of any selection of a detailed image area
within a cropped image for higher resolution review, features
present in independent claims 9 and 10 and in independent
claims 1 and 6 upon which claims
2-4, 7 and 8 are dependent, that would overcome the innate
deficiencies of Graham discussed supra. It is also apparent
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007