Appeal No. 2004-0532
Application No. 09/150,277
creating a third subarray of the fabric sheet image
array pixel signal values indexed a select amount from
said fabric sheet image array center; determining a
second aggregate pixel value error from a sum of pixel
value errors found by a comparison between
corresponding first and third array values and
identifying as a match that subarray whose comparison
with said first array yielded the lessor [sic] of the
first and second aggregate pixel value errors.
Regarding appealed claims 1, 18, 25, and 26, the examiner
states (answer at 6-7) that Chaiken does not disclose:
modifying each acquired image data frames to
correct distortions of the acquired image of the areal
portion;
compiling the image data frames to form a
photographic image of the areal portions of the sheet
material;
displaying the composite image;
means for combining said calibrated image data to
obtain a composite photographic image of at least a
portion of the sheet material; and
a display coupled to the processor for displaying
said composite image;
compiling said modified images to form a
composite photographic image of a portion of the sheet
material.
Nevertheless, it is the examiner’s basic position that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the
teachings of Chaiken with those of Borchers so as to arrive at
the invention recited in the appealed claims. (Id. at 7-9.)
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis and
conclusion. As pointed out by the appellant (appeal brief filed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007