Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
Claims 4, 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Singhal and Kawauchi with regard to claim 4, Singhal and Ryoo with regard to
claim 5, and Kawauchi and Eifrig with regard to claim 8.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
With regard to independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that Singhal discloses the
instant claimed subject matter for the reasons set forth at pages 3-4 of the answer. In particular,
the examiner asserts that Singhal discloses the claimed step of “assigning a texture type to each
texture area having a similar texture pattern” in the variance processor 8 of Singhal’s Figure 2,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007