Appeal No. 2002-1657
Application No. 09/134,981
image files. Although the Examiner directs attention (Answer, page
7) to column 8, lines 42-67 of Futamura, we find nothing in this
portion, or elsewhere in Futamura, which satisfies the language of
claims 2 and 20. We are in agreement with Appellant (Reply Brief,
page 4) that the Examiner has never shown or explained how the
“region labelling” processes mentioned in Futamura (column 8, lines
44-45) relate to the claimed interpreting of regular and singular
regions. We do make the observation that independent claim 20 sets
forth a very broad recitation of Appellant’s invention since, for
example, the claimed optimum sew order is not recited as being
dependent on or responsive to the generated output image file.
Nevertheless, we find no support in the disclosure of Futamura that
would support the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation based on
Futamura.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of appealed claims 1-9 and 11-20 based on Futamura, we
have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19, but have
not sustained the rejection of claims 2 and 20. Therefore, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20 is affirmed-in-
part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007