Appeal 2006-2139
Application 10/292,221
is not relevant in determining whether Meyers anticipates the subject matter
of claim 1.
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claim 11 which Appellant has not argued separately from claim 1, as
anticipated by Meyers. Having determined that Meyers meets the “free-
form line drawing that a user can, through the exercise of imagination and
creativity, interpret and supplement to construct an image that incorporates
but is not determined by the free-form line drawing” limitation of claim 1,
we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Meyers.
In arguing against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 10-12, and
25-28 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Whang, Appellant
merely relies on the argument discussed above that Meyers fails to disclose a
“free-form line drawing that a user can, through the exercise of imagination
and creativity, interpret and supplement to construct an image that
incorporates but is not determined by the free-form line drawing.” Having
determined above that Meyers meets this limitation, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 3-5, 10-12, and 25-28.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013