Appeal No. 2005-2712
Application No. 10/408,302
determine, the area and the respective resolution of regions within the area based upon
predefined criteria and additionally has an input which is adapted to receive adjustments
to at least some of the predefined criteria such that the processing element determines
the area and the respective resolution of regions within the area based upon the
adjusted criteria. Note particularly, the “what-if analysis” referred to at column 7, lines
39-42 of Tang and at column 11, lines 24-29. On that basis, the examiner’s rejection of
claims
35 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tang will also be sustained.
In light of the above discussion, and for the reasons fully set forth in the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that the examiner has made out a prima facie case of anticipation.
Thus, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 32 through 39 of the present
application is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007