Appeal No. 2007-0095
Application No. 09/843,566
A user viewing this composite sees one large image comprising 9
smaller images. Thus, Figure 11 of Anderson does, indeed, show a
window “divided into a plurality of cells, each of said cells
being associated with different segments of an image,” as
claimed.
Appellant’s citation of various portions of Anderson
reciting a plurality of “images” is not persuasive of an error in
interpreting Figure 11 of Anderson as being a single image
comprised of 9 segments. Neither are we convinced by appellant’s
attempt to distinguish the instant claimed invention over
Anderson by citing the claim language calling for an association
between a window cell and a segment of an image (brief-page 9).
Clearly, the “image” in Anderson is the image shown in Figure 11,
wherein that single image comprises 9 different segments each
segment being shown in each of the cells K08-K16. There is an
association between a window cell (e.g., the airplane shown in
cell K08) and a segment (that segment depicting the airplane part
of the overall image) of the image.
Since appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s reasoning, we will sustain the rejection of claims
1-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007