Appeal No. 2002-1646
Application No. 09/440,233
(g) transmitting information relating to an image associated
with the pixel values or source thereof between a first location
and a second location remote from the first location to provide
remote services.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Hara et al. (Hara) 4,950,894 Aug. 21, 1990
Haskin 5,005,126 Apr. 02, 1991
Shimura 5,060,081 Oct. 22, 1991
Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi) 5,757,022 May 26, 1998
Claims 1-22 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Kobayashi in view
of Shimura and Haskin with respect to claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-21,
and adds Hara to the basic combination with respect to claims 8,
12, and 22.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Answer
(Paper No. 9) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Brief along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007