Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
importantly, while a subtraction may also be a comparison, the
examiner’s explanation fails to explain how any subtraction step
relied upon would entail a comparison of “said image-portion with
said interpolation,” as claimed. That is, the claim not only
calls for a comparison, it calls for a comparison between two
specific things, an “image-portion” and “said interpolation.”
The examiner has failed to explain how this is considered to be
taught by Westerman.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed. Moreover, since claims 27-30 also contain
limitations directed to a specific comparison, and the examiner
has not addressed how Westerman is seen to disclose the specifics
of the comparisons claimed, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The
examiner’s reference to Westerman’s column 6, lines 40-68, with
regard to claims 28 and 30, and to column 6, lines 25-40, with
regard to claim 29, is not seen to disclose the claimed
comparisons.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-23, 25, 26 and
31-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007