Appeal No. 1999-2025
Application No. 08/394,212
extracting means, and uses Janeway to show that teaching. Id.
at page 5. The examiner asserts, id. at page 6, that “[i]t
would have been obvious . . . [to] modify the Tsuji’s system
to process the half-tone image of a document as taught by
Janeway because these two references operate the similar
environment and the modified system would efficiently extend
its ability to process the different formats of the document.”
However, Janeway does not cure the deficiency noted above in
Tsuji in meeting the recited limitation of discriminating
means for discriminating a consecutive alignment of picture
elements, each of which defines “the edge detected by said
edge detecting means.” Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of these claims over Tsuji in view of
Janeway.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 20, 34
through 44, 54, 56, 72 through 76, and 82 through 87 by Tsuji;
nor the obviousness rejection of claims 26, 28, 55, 57 through
71, and 77 through 81 over Tsuji in view of Janeway.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007