Appeal No. 2005-0524
Application No. 10/028,124
Noyama does suggest the argued “weighted combination,” even
though instant claim 1 does not require this.
Finally, appellants cite column 6, lines 25-26, of Noyama
and conclude therefrom that “it is evident that CG model of
Noyama. . .is not ‘a set of image samples from a set of image
sample values and geometrical parameters,’ as required by the
claims” (brief-pages 5-6).
Again, this argument is not convincing because the
examiner’s rationale did not contend that the CG model of Noyama
was a set of image samples from a set of image sample values and
geometrical parameter. Rather, the examiner identified the CG
image 20 as providing the set of image sample values, the
transformation data memory 21 as providing the geometrical
parameters, and the composite image 50 as establishing a set of
image samples from image sample values and geometrical parameters
from these two other elements.
Since we have reviewed all of appellants’ arguments and, for
the reasons supra, have not found them persuasive of any error in
the examiner’s case, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and of claims 2-4, based on appellants’
grouping of the claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007