Appeal No. 1999-2315
Application No. 08/742,432
We again agree with the position argued by appellant. We
are unable to equate the mean value and variance computations
of Shinohara with brightness difference value computations and
energy difference value computations as the examiner has done.
We agree with appellant that there is no teaching in Shinohara
of computing energy difference values and comparing energy
difference values to energy difference threshold values as
recited in claims 11 and 13. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 13.
Since we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 11 and 13, we also do not sustain the
rejection of any dependent claims based only on the teachings
of Shinohara and Kajiwara. Although the examiner has applied
the additional teachings of Kilger or Lo to dependent claims
7, 8, 14 and 16, the additional teachings of Kilger and Lo do
not overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination
discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of any of the dependent claims on appeal.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007