Appeal No. 2002-1550
Application No. 09/158,884
Appellants argue that Ohuchi does not use the peak and valley count within any
particular block when it classifies a pixel in the block (see principal brief-page 11). We
disagree.
At the top of column 3 of the patent, it is disclosed that extreme points (peaks
and valleys) corresponding to each of the blocks are counted and the larger one of the
counted extreme points in each block is determined. Then, a discriminating step
discriminates whether or not a predetermined picture element within an object block
belongs to a dot region based on the relationship of the number of extreme points
of the object block and the numbers of extreme points of the blocks surrounding
the object block. Accordingly, it appears that Ohuchi does use the peak and valley
count in a block for classifying a pixel.
Appellants also argue, at page 11 of the principal brief, that whereas the instant
invention requires the classification device to determine a class of a pixel based on the
greatest peak or valley count, after the peak/valley detection device determines the
peak count and the valley count within each subwindow for the particular pixel, Ohuchi
teaches that a pixel is classified solely based on the counts of blocks that meet a
threshold, regardless of the actual peak and valley count.
We agree with the examiner that according to the language of claim 1, a class of
pixel is classified “based on the greatest of the peak counts of the peaks within the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007