Appeal No. 2006-1618
Application No. 10/046,797
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 35. As the examiner
indicates, although Kim does not disclose extracting contour information, Suzuki
amply teaches such extraction for image manipulation and editing [Suzuki, col. 1,
lines 10-24]. As we noted previously, the references are reasonably combinable
and our rationale is also applicable here. See Pages 8-10, supra, of this opinion.
The examiner's rejection of claim 35 is reasonable and therefore sustained.
Since appellant has not separately argued the patentability of dependent
claims 2, 10, 16, 18, 26, 27, and 36, these claims fall with independent claims 1,
12, and 33. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki and further in view of
Ikezawa. The examiner essentially finds that the claim differs from the teachings
of Kim and Suzuki in calling for the user input to select, for individual ones of the
contours, at least one of the respective vertices and width of an area of the
graphical image [non-final rejection, pages 8 and 9]. The examiner cites Ikezawa
as disclosing a system where the user can select vertices and the width of an
area [id.]. The examiner then finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the user to specify
vertices of a contour and width of a contour area to account for complicated
contours [id.].
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007