Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

ChAPtER 13 | GETTING THE PTO TO DELIVER | 375
Appn. Number 07/910,721 (Schwartz et al) GAU 3303 Amnt. A contd. 10 of 13
2. The Proposed Combination Would Not Be Physically Possible or Operable
Hashim shows a system for creating an image of a product and modifying the gray levels of this image
using a transformation function. Gaborski shows a template with spaced vertical lines and a histogram for
inspecting the correlation between the template image and the product image. It would not be physically
possible to combine these two disparate systems in an operative manner because each system is a complete
operable system in and of itself and incorporating Gaborski’s system in Hashim’s would completely alter
and destroy Hashim’s function and make it a different system that could not perform its intended function
in an operable manner.
3. Even If Hashim and Gaborski Were to Be Combined in the Manner Proposed, the Proposed
Combination Would Not Show All of the Novel Physical Features of Claim 37
However even if the combination of Hashim and Gaborski were legally justified, claim 37 would still have
novel (and unobvious) physical features over the proposed combination. In other words, applicant’s invention,
as defined by claim 37, comprises much more than merely substituting a plurality of templates for one
template.
Specifically, clauses (a) and (b) of claim 37 clearly distinguish applicant’s template histogram from
Gaborski’s and Hashim’s, or any possible combination thereof, since these clauses recite:
“(a) providing and saving in said memory a plurality of computer-generated artificial template
images, each of said plurality of computer-generated artificial template images having a plurality of
predetermined coordinates and addresses mapped within said memory, said plurality of computergenerated
artificial template images together defining a full template image.
(b) assigning a plurality of predetermined gray levels to each of said plurality of computer-generated
artificial template images.”
Neither Hasim nor Gaborski show these features because neither of their systems assign specific gray levels
to any predetermined coordinates and addresses, as applicants’ system does.
By assigning specific gray levels to predetermined coordinates and addresses, applicants’ system causes the
histogram vectors of clause (c) to have values correlated to addresses, a feature that is missing in ordinary
histogram vectors, such as those of Hashim and Gaborski. Thus Hashim and Gaborski also lack the feature
of clause (c), i.e.,:
“(c) creating a respective plurality of histogram vectors of said plurality of computer-generated
artificial template images, each of said histogram vectors having values which are correlated to said
coordinates and addresses mapped within said memory.”
Clause (f) also clearly distinguishes over Gaborski and Hashim since it recites:
“(f) creating a plurality of additional gray levels by mathematically combining said plurality of
modified gray levels with said plurality of preselected gray levels so that said plurality of additional
gray levels are different from said plurality of modified gray levels or said plurality of preselected
gray levels.”
Fig. 13E/10—Sample “Regular” Amendment