Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
that Appellants have failed to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled
in the art that Appellants were in possession of the invention as of the filing
date sought. We further note that Appellants merely rely upon a dictionary
definition for “image” and argue that an “image” is a “non-text image” (see
Br. 11). We agree with the Examiner that a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term “image” encompasses the set of all images,
including images of textual documents. Therefore, we find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of claims 6, 12,
and 18.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and
14 as being anticipated by Shamoon. Since Appellants’ arguments with
respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which
stands or falls together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
At the outset, we note that Appellants have also argued that dependent
claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are not anticipated by Shamoon (see Br. 8, ¶
1). Because dependent claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 were rejected by the
Examiner on grounds of being unpatentable over Shamoon in view of
Nicolas, we find Appellants’ arguments moot with respect to these claims as
being anticipated by Shamoon. We specifically address the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over Shamoon in view of
Nicolas infra. Because Appellants have failed to traverse the Examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013