Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
With regard to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103, as unpatentable over
Singhal in view of Kawauchi, we will sustain this rejection because, while Singhal does not teach
“assigning a texture type to each texture area having a similar texture pattern,” we find that
Kawauchi provides for this deficiency at column 9, lines 55-67. Moreover, while the examiner
provides a reason (answer-pages 5-6) for combining these references, appellant does not
separately argue the limitations of claim 4 or the non-combinability of the references.
We find it puzzling as to why the examiner did not apply the teachings of Kawauchi to
instant claims 1-3, 5 and 6 but, for whatever reason, the examiner did not do so and we decline to
enter a new ground of rejection.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 7 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e), as well as
the rejections of claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103. We have not, however, sustained the
rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) or the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007