Appeal No. 1999-2025
Application No. 08/394,212
34 through 44, 54, 56, 72 through 76, and 82 through 87, the
examiner asserts, final rejection (paper no. 60), that Tsuji
anticipates the limitations claimed in each of the independent
claims under this group. Appellant argues, brief at page 14,
that “the claimed invention uses the result of edge detection
to discriminate a consecutive alignment of picture elements or
portions, each picture element or portion defining the
detected edge. Each claim further requires using the result
of
discriminating a consecutive alignment of picture elements or
portions in controlling further processing of the image data.”
The examiner points to figure 7 of Tsuji to explain that the
edge detection takes place via elements 151, 152 and 154. The
examiner identifies discriminating means comprising elements
149, 153, 152B and 157 (final rejection at page 3). However,
we agree with appellant, brief at page 17, that “averaging
circuit 149 neither detects a picture element that defines an
edge of the image, nor discriminates a consecutive alignment
of picture elements or portions, each of which defines the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007