Appeal No. 2002-0279
Application No. 09/164,795
While this may, in fact, be a difference between appellants’
invention and that disclosed by IBM, we find nothing in the
instant claimed invention about data formats. Arguments directed
to subject matter not appearing in the claims are not persuasive.
Appellants further explain that the sequence of steps in the
instant claimed invention and those taught by IBM are not
equivalent. While such an argument regarding a method claim may
have some credence, where a method is performed in specifically
ordered steps, in the instant case, we agree with the examiner
that the instant independent claims “do not specifically recite a
cause and effect order of limitations” (answer-page 22).
Accordingly, while certain steps of instant claim 1, for example,
must be performed in a specific order, such as first launching a
preview scan, then displaying the preview scan and then selecting
a region of interest from the preview scan, it does not follow
that step (d), receiving an input signal for selecting the
software application, must, necessarily follow steps (a)-(c).
Even step (e), which states that the image data “corresponds to
said selected region of interest,” does not require that it
follow step (c), selecting a region of interest, because even
where the selection of a region of interest is selected after
creation of image data, the image data may still “correspond” to
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007