Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. As we
indicated previously, the display image size (i.e., the “display area”)
decreases progressively from the foreground towards the back row (Miyao,
col. 11, ll. 16-34). Accordingly, the scaled-down images displayed within
these display areas are likewise reduced in size in a progressive fashion,
whether the ring-like display is viewed from the perspective used in Miyao’s
Figure 1 or frontally, when Miyao is modified in view of Angiulo in the
manner explained above.
Furthermore, “scaling down” an image reduces an image at least in
the horizontal or vertical directions, and often reduces the image in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. For example, scaling down full-size
images to thumbnail representations (e.g., a 200 x 200 pixel image to a 20 x
20 pixel image) reduces the size of the image both horizontally and
vertically. For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is
therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Appellant argues that Miyao does not
display only a portion of the image as claimed, let alone a center portion, but
rather displays a scaled-down, miniature version of the entire image (Br. 13;
Reply Br. 12; Supp. Reply Br. 8). The Examiner argues that Miyao displays
a center portion of the scaled-down images in the two images directly behind
the image in the foreground.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5. In our
view, the image data that is overlapped in the rows behind the front row
fully meets displaying only a portion of the image data in those display
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013