Appeal No. 2007-0095
Application No. 09/843,566
concludes that it would have been obvious “to combine the first
and second windows of Angiulo with Anderson’s screens” in order
to “help the user easily browse these images” (answer-page 3).
Appellant argues only that Anderson pertains to viewing and
handling multiple images while the instant invention pertains to
segmenting a single image (brief-page 7). Appellant has no
quarrel with the propriety of combining the references and
appellant does not argue that Angiulo does not disclose what the
examiner alleges it to disclose. Thus, the sole argument,
directed at all of the claims, is that Anderson does not view and
handle a single image.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence before us and we
conclude from such a review that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter that has not been successfully rebutted by
appellant.
Taking instant claim 1 as exemplary, we agree with the
examiner that the various images within group types 90” in Figure
11 of Anderson may be reasonably interpreted as cells making up
an entire single image comprising the 9 different images therein.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007