Appeal No. 2006-1618
Application No. 10/046,797
vertices (points) in the contour detection systems disclosed in Kim and Suzuki
are essentially "disjointed contour elements" that are "bridged" by detecting a
contour between the points. We see no reason why the skilled artisan would not
reasonably refer to the teachings of Catros for a method to connect such
adjacent "discontinuities" (i.e., points) together by the shortest path that accounts
for image gradient information. The examiner's combination of Catros with Kim
and Suzuki is reasonable; the rejection of claims 3 and 4 is therefore sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5,
7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Kim in view of the teachings of Suzuki and Catros. We find that (1)
the examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for
these claims on pages 9-13 of the non-final rejection, and (2) appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the examiner's prima facie case. The rejection is therefore
sustained.
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 20-23, 31, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Catros in view of Makram-
Ebeid. Regarding independent claim 20, the examiner finds that Catros
discloses essentially all of the claimed subject matter except for (1) regions
defined by a scale parameter, and (2) contours associated with a scale
parameter [non-final rejection, page 17]. The examiner cites Makram-Ebeid as
teaching a method of merging regions where each region and contour is
associated with a certain scale parameter [non-final rejection, page 18]. The
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007