Appeal No. 1999-1694
Application No. 08/474,903
information reader, which satisfy the claimed “selection of image
data” requirement, are provided in the description beginning at
column 10, line 41 of Wada.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Wada, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claims 18 and 24, as
well as dependent claims 19-23 and 25-29 not separately argued by
Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of independent claims 39 and 51, as well as dependent
claims 42-46 for which Appellants have provided no separate
arguments for patentability, we sustain this rejection as well.
The language of independent claim 39, instead of reciting the
selection of sensed image data as in claims 18 and 24, requires a
data processor which “ . . . varies the amount of image data
. . . ” sensed by the image sensor. Similarly, independent claim
51, rather than reciting the selection of sensed image data, sets
forth a controller which “ . . . controls sampling of image data
. . . . ” In our view, the processing feature of varying the
amount of image data sensed by an image sensor, as well as the
sampling of such sensed image data, to provide an image output is
clearly disclosed in the description of Figure 14 beginning at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007