Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
shown in figure 8. Numeral 4 denotes an extracted processing
section which is in receipt of the pictorial part. See column 9,
lines 50 through 62. Aono teaches that when the input image is
appointed to be pictorial parts, the extracted processing section
4 conducts the separation of the object image from the component
background image. See column 10, lines 13 through 16. As shown
in figure 15, “0" and “1” are allocated to the component
background image and the object image, thus forming a region
information. This process is conducted by the user who
determines whether “1” or “0" is to be allocated through the
interactive method. See column 10, lines 20 through 27. Thus,
we fail to find that Aono teaches a 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 background, determining boundaries of the
plurality of objects” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, we note that
the Examiner has relied on Aono for the above limitation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007