Appeal 2006-2959
Application 10/066,277
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 42 as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 23 through 26 and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Esrig.
B. Claims 5 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Esrig and Jaber.
C. Claims 17 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Esrig, Wallack, Mitsuyama and Jaber.
D. Claims 9 through 11, 14 through 16, 18 through 20, 29 through 31, 34
through 36, and 38 through 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Esrig, Wallack and Mitsuyama.
E. Claims 12, 21, 32 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Esrig, Wallack, Mitsuyama and
Oosawa.
F. Claims 13, 22, 33 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Esrig, Wallack, Mitsuyama and
Cho.
The Examiner relied on the following references:
Esrig US 4,755,874 Jul. 5, 1988
Jaber US 5,262,967 Nov. 16, 1993
Mitsuyama US 5,768,412 Jun. 16, 1998
Oosawa US 6,151,408 Nov. 21, 2000
Wallack US 6,748,110 B1 Jun. 8, 2004
Dong-uk Cho, Feature Extraction using Fuzzy Relations for Objects of
Various Shapes, IEEE Conference on System, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 1,
272-275, 1996
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013