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