Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 15
Application No. 09/845,589
make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings of FJCP and Monn. In addition, we find that from the
disclosure of Monn of creating a collage as a composite of
pictures, we agree with the examiner that the teachings and
suggestions of FJCP and Monn would have suggested annotating the
photograph with other photographs, as recited in claim 8. We are
not persuaded by appellants’ assertion that the pictures of the
prior art are not necessarily digital. From the disclosure of
FJCP’s online service having enhancements and SmilesByWire®, we
find that the photographs are digital or would have suggested
digital photograph processing. The rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
We turn next to claim 10. Appellants assert (brief, page
10) that the reasons for the reversal of the rejection of claim 8
are incorporated by reference. Appellants additionally argue
that
Claim 10 also calls for forming at least one image that
itself is a series of images (“forming at least one
visual image of the series of different characteristics
of images on a single medium distinct from the page”),
and cutting out and fixing that series image. As noted
previously Monn has a single photocopy of an photo
example and FJCP discloses a sheet of photos example.
These examples are not an image that is a series of
images. FJCP and Monn say nothing about this.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007