Appeal 2007-1652
Application 09/776,058
420 in Fig. 12. Although Anderson does not detail the means used to adjust
the color, the reference nevertheless indicates that once the user selects the
desired editing function (e.g., “color”), a menu or screen is displayed
showing modifiable parameters (Anderson, col. 13, l. 63 – col. 14, l. 4; Fig.
12). In our view, the skilled artisan would have reasonably relied on the
teachings of Kim to provide a color adjustment capability in Anderson that
would utilize, among other things, user-specified color data generated using
a look-up table.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-14.
Claims 15-20
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim in view of Anderson. Regarding
representative claim 15,6 the Examiner’s rejection essentially finds that Kim
discloses every claimed feature except outputting and recording an image on
an electronic media of the digital visual recording device that includes
combined filtering effects. The Examiner cites Anderson as teaching this
feature and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide such a feature in Kim to
enable the user to edit and view the image with a selected color without
using a color filter (Answer 8-9).
Appellants essentially reiterate that there is no motivation to combine
Anderson with Kim. According to Appellants, such a combination would
6 Appellants argue claims 15-20 together as a group. See Br. 8-10.
Accordingly, we select claim 15 as representative.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013