Appeal No. 2006-1448
Application No. 10/444,868
of the at least one image after processing;
displaying at least a portion of the at least one image after processing, which is a part
of the whole image, on one of the selected at least one area, wherein the at least one image
after processing is derived from an area of the image before processing that corresponds to
said selected at least one area of the whole image display area; and
displaying at least a portion of the image before processing, which is a part of the
whole image, on an area of the whole image display area not selected to display the at least
one image after processing, wherein the displaying steps are performed simultaneously.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Strnatka et al. (Strnatka) 5,272,769 Dec. 21, 1993
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Strnatka.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to
the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by
the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale
in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of
Strnatka does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-20. Accordingly, we
reverse.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007