Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, and 13 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will first address the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7, and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the
claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Aono fails to teach “an image input
device having a platen, said image input device scanning a
plurality of undersized originals on the platen and producing a
single digitized image including representations of each of the
plurality of undersized originals imaged by said device” as
recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13. See pages 5 through 7
of Appellant’s brief. Appellant also argues that Aono fails to
teach “said computer, in accordance with preprogrammed
instructions, determining a background of the digitized image,
identifying the plurality of digitized undersized originals as
objects within the digitized input image based on the determined
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007