Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
The examiner has indicated how he finds anticipation of
these claims [answer, pages 3-4]. With respect to claim 1,
appellants argue that the “outline” recited in claim 1 “means the
line which connects the intersection points of the document table
and the lines connecting the document edge and the lens” [brief,
pages 20-21]. Appellants argue that the size of the document is
not measured in Fujii nor is there any disclosure of examining
the size of a document based on its height and the outline of the
document. The examiner responds that the height profile
calculated by Fujii meets the recitation of an outline as recited
in claim 1. The examiner also responds that Fujii clearly uses
the height and the height profile to examine the size of the
document as claimed [answer, page 16]. Appellants respond that
the term outline as used in claim 1 must be interpreted in light
of the disclosure and is not met by the height profile of Fujii.
They note that Fujii cannot accurately determine the size of the
document since it does not take into account the skewing of the
document from a predetermined position [reply brief, pages 2-5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
essentially the reasons noted by the examiner in the rejection
and in the response to arguments section of the answer. With
respect to the meaning of the term “outline,” we agree with the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007