Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
columns 42 and 104 (again with no explanation as to how any of
the noted sections correspond to the claim limitation).
Appellant (Brief, pages 13-14) again sets forth why each portion
cited by the examiner fails to satisfy the claim limitation. The
examiner responds (Answer, page 4) that in Taguchi "the search
for an image is done using a character types [sic] and the image
is of a binary type." However, the format (i.e., binary) of the
stored image is different from the character type of the search
information. We agree with appellant's analysis of the portions
cited by the examiner, and we find nothing in the reference that
indicates that the search requesting apparatus uses a different
character type than the database. Since Taguchi fails to
disclose each and every element of claim 68, we cannot sustain
the anticipation rejection of claim 68.
Claim 69 recites, in pertinent part, judging means for
determining whether or not image processing is necessary for the
image and control means for transmitting a) the image from the
database or b) the location of the image in the database,
depending on whether or not image processing is judged to be
necessary. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 13) points to
Figures 125 and 127 and portions of columns 1, 53, 78, and 102
(without any explanation as to how those sections relate to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007