Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
claims further define the subcombination - some of them
introducing operations that clearly demonstrate use in
a decoding method.
We agree with the appellant’s arguments. The indefiniteness
rejection of claims 2 through 9 is reversed because the examiner
has not proven that the claims are indefinite merely because the
term “decoding” is not expressly recited in the two method steps
of claim 1.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 9, we
agree with the appellant’s arguments (supplemental brief, page 4)
that “Sheng teaches use of the Fourier-Mellin2 technique in
pattern matching applications,” but does not mention “information
steganographically encoded within an image.” The examiner’s
contentions (answer, pages 5 and 6) to the contrary
notwithstanding, Sheng does not disclose steganographically
encoded information or graticule information within an image.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 9 is reversed because
Sheng does not disclose every limitation of claim 9.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 2
through 4, we agree with the appellant’s arguments (supplemental
2 Appellant’s disclosure states that “the Fourier-Mellin
transform is well suited for use in . . . pattern matching
problems” (specification, page 82).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007