Appeal No. 2003-0901
Application 09/303,368
Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection
essentially parallel the arguments discussed above with respect
to the rejection based on Blinn. The examiner’s response to
appellants’ arguments and appellants’ arguments set forth in the
reply brief are essentially the same as the arguments we
considered above.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based
on the teachings of Johnson for reasons discussed above.
Specifically, the key question again is appellants’ improper
attempt to have the term “pre-processing” of claim 1 interpreted
in a manner which is narrower that its broadest reasonable
interpretation. We agree with the examiner that the processing
of Johnson which he has identified as pre-processing is
consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of that
term.
Once again, although appellants refer to other claims on
appeal, the discussion of these other claims does not amount to a
separate argument for patentability. Therefore, we also sustain
the examiner’s rejection of all the other claims on appeal based
on Johnson.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007