Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
not based on a technician supplied windowing parameter. With respect to claim 61, we agree
with appellants that there is no information provided in Novik which relates to a desired
diagnosis. The image itself does not relate to a desired diagnosis. We also agree with appellants
that Novik does not automatically select a desired amount of error responsive to the diagnosis
information.
We now consider the rejection of claims 64-68 based on Novik, Duso and Resnikoff.
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed invention to be obvious over the applied
prior art [final rejection, pages 25-27, incorporated into answer at page 6]. With respect to each
of these claims, appellants argue that although a user may have control over quality, none of the
cited art suggest that a client can select what type of representation to use in response to a
desired quality as claimed. Appellants also argue that a faithful representation is not shown by
the applied prior art [brief, page 28].
The examiner responds that Novik has direct control over the precision of the
representation of the image [answer, page 24]. Appellants respond that the examiner has failed
to respond to appellants’ argument that control over quality is not the same as or congruent with
control over representation type or the faithful representation argument [reply brief, page 15].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 64-68 for the reasons argued by
appellants in the briefs. We agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to respond to
appellants’ specific reasonable arguments. Therefore, we are not persuaded by the examiner’s
findings in support of the rejection. We also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007