Appeal 2007-0757
Application 09/952,249
transformed the image into a binary image and then use the estimate of the
inter-ridge line distance. As discussed above, the determination is not
specific as to how it is performed. Therefore, we do not find that the
rejection is in error. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 7 and dependent claim 20
grouped therewith by Appellants.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
rwk
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SEVENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES CA 90025-1030
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013