Appeal No. 2005-0444
Application No. 10/025,671
structural/process limitations since the form of the claim and
the language in the specification limit the claimed invention to
that kind of compressed image data.
As pointed out by Appellant (brief, page 12), Hsu provides
for the operations of dilation and erosion which add or remove
pixels to the boundary of the edges (col. 5, lines 19-30).
Nowhere in Hsu discarding or maintaining pixels based on their
direction with respect to the edge data is discussed. Similarly,
Hyatt, in the sections relied on by the Examiner, merely
describes a fill process based on generating the next and the
previous pixels for a moving edge (col. 205, lines 43-45).
Although Hyatt discusses the effect of the moving edge on
adjacent pixels and how the more removed from the edge pixel the
adjacent pixels are, the less the effect of the slope of the edge
becomes (col. 206, lines 5-19), there is no teaching related to
the claimed discarding or maintaining of pixels of an image data.
As discussed above, Hsu and Hyatt merely provide for
compressed and reduced pixel images either for image resizing or
a fill process, respectively, which do not differentiate between
the pixels along the edge or perpendicular to an edge. In
concluding that Hsu teaches the removing of the pixels while
Hyatt “selects pixels along the vertical direction perpendicular
to the edge,” the Examiner attempts to forge a combination of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007