Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880
necessary teachings and suggestions to show that such
substitution is motivated or the polynomial function has anything
to do with the design of the claimed image array are absent.
Accordingly, based on the weight of the evidence and the
arguments presented by the Examiner and Appellant, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 1, 10 and 15 as
well as claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-21, dependent
thereon, over Resnikoff and Balph.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007