Appeal No. 94-3823
Application 07/812,249
predominate color which provides a basis for distinguishing the
characters, or a second color which is non-distracting to humans.
Moreover, the examiner did not find either Martin or Highleyman
as disclosing the predominate and non-predominate color features
of the appellants' claimed invention.
Absent a teaching of the above limitation concerning the
type of characters to be processed, and how they are processed,
we may not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Similarly, since the examiner relied on Clark to meet this same
limitation in claim 3, we may not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 3, which was made in view of Martin, Clark
and Highleyman.
Conclusions
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as corresponding to a specification that lacks an
enabling disclosure is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for indefiniteness is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view
of Clark is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007