Ex Parte TANAKA - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-0353                                                                              
                Application 09/255,352                                                                        
                      After reviewing the disclosure of Sato in light of the arguments of                     
                record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in                    
                the Brief.  We would point out that we don’t necessarily agree with                           
                Appellant that Sato uses only a single designated image as a source for                       
                search criteria.  We find in Sato a suggestion that the designated input image                
                100 (Figure 5, col. 7, ll. 52-60 and Figure 21) is segmented into regions                     
                which, in our view, could reasonably be interpreted as being a plurality of                   
                images.                                                                                       
                      We do agree with Appellant, however, that Sato is not concerned                         
                with, and never makes any determination of, any features in the designated                    
                input image, or the plurality of designated input segments, that might be                     
                common to each other.  As argued by Appellant (Br. 10-11), the portions of                    
                Sato cited by the Examiner describe the comparison search for features of                     
                images in the stored database which might be common to the features in the                    
                designated image, or segmented regions of the designated image, to                            
                determine which stored images might be the best matches for the designated                    
                input image.  Sato, however, never performs any comparison of feature                         
                values in the designated input image, or regions thereof, to determine any                    
                common features that might exist.  As a consequence, Sato never uses, as                      
                search criteria, the common feature values of the designated input or input                   
                regions as required by each of the appealed independent claims.                               
                      In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are                 
                not present in the disclosure of Sato, we do not sustain the Examiner’s                       
                35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21,                   
                24, 27, 31, and 32, nor of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22,                
                23, 25, 26, and 28-30 dependent thereon.                                                      

                                                      5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013