Appeal No. 2005-0524
Application No. 10/028,124
composite image is a weighted combination of image sample values
as disclosed in the present application” (brief-page 5).
The broad terms of the claim lend themselves to broad
interpretations. If the terms of the claim were unclear, we
would refer to the specification for a definition. But the
terms, “image samples” and “image sample values,” are clear on
their face. Therefore, we need not read limitations from the
specification into the claims (the claims are not in “means-plus-
function” or “step-plus-function” format which would require
invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph). If appellants wanted
to limit the claimed subject matter to image samples which are “a
weighted combination of image sample values,” appellants could
have drafted the claims in that manner. We also note that the
examiner maintains that even if he construed the term, “image
sample,” as requiring a “weighted combination,” as urged by
appellants, this is “inherent” within the composite image of
Noyama because all the image data of the composite image provide
a “weight” to the final image. Moreover, the examiner contends,
“a composite image generated using a scale transform must have
associated weights” (answer-page 7). Yet, appellants did not
challenge the examiner’s finding of “inherency” nor did
appellants challenge any other finding of the examiner that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007