Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
claim language). Appellant (Brief, pages 15-16) again evaluates
each portion and explains why it fails to satisfy the claim
language. The examiner responds (Answer, page 5), "Taguchi
discloses such wherein detection of abnormalities are detected,
image processing judging is deemed to be done."
The examiner appears to have missed the point of the claim.
As explained by appellant (Brief, page 16), Taguchi does not
describe any different treatment for data transmissions according
to whether image processing is or is not necessary. Taguchi does
not provide location information when no processing is desired,
as required by claim 69. Thus, Taguchi fails to anticipate claim
69, and we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection thereof.
Claims 73 through 76 each recite either a means or a step
for determining according to a pre-setting whether only the
storing means or the storing means as well as the database are
searched. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 15) directs our
attention to portions of columns 13 and 18 (again without any
explanation as to the relevance.) Appellant asserts (Brief, page
18) that neither column 13 nor column 18 discusses searching
certain locations. The examiner (Answer, page 5) responds, "[I]f
the user is only searching for non-image data, then he will not
be searching the image database and if he is searching for both
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007