Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
been obvious “to incorporate Terashita’s apparatus and method
into Hutcheson’s apparatus, as Terashita suggests, for the
motivation of providing a method and apparatus for discriminating
a principal image correctly.” Paper No. 6 at page 3. Appellant
argues that “[t]he combination clearly does not produce
applicant’s invention.” Appeal Brief at 7.
We agree with Appellant. The examiner has not explained how
one could “incorporate Terashita’s apparatus and method into
Hutcheson’s apparatus” to create Appellant’s invention. Both
references lack the recited computer programmed to analyze and
identify scanned image frames based on criteria entered in a
keyboard and a printer for printing the scanned images selected
by that analysis. Thus, no conceivable combination of the
references could create the claimed subject matter and the
rejection will not be sustained.
Hutcheson in view of Terashita further in view of Shimizu or
Cosgrove
The remaining claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Terashita as discussed
above, and further in view of Shimizu or Cosgrove.
Neither Shimizu nor Cosgrove remedy the defects of the basic
rejection. Neither discloses the recited method steps or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007