Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
It seems to us that this is a fair teaching of determining a texture type that is associated
with the at least one texture area since one must first determine what type of frequency spectrum
pattern a texture area has and that will determine into which group it fits. While the examiner has
set forth a reasonable basis for finding the determination of a texture type that is associated with
at least one texture area in Kawauchi, at column 9, lines 55-67, appellant has offered nothing to
rebut this position, as appellant does not even respond to the examiner’s identification of this
portion of Kawauchi.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 7, and of claims 9-13, dependent
thereon but not separately argued by appellant, under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Singhal in view of Ryoo, because, for the reasons supra, Singhal does not disclose “assigning a
texture type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern,” and Ryoo does not provide for
this deficiency.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Kawauchi in view of Eifrig since we have sustained independent claim 7, from which claim 8
depends, and appellant does not separately argue the merits of claim 8.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007