Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
of Nopp and Havel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the subject matter of claims 61 and 69 to be obvious.
We note that Appellant has not argued the limitation of
mapping two respective hues on a single destination here found
in claim 61. Instead, Appellant argues that the claimed
invention is not obvious in view of the applied combination of
references because Nopp fails to teach cross-color mapping,
and Havel only teaches cross-color mapping of the background,
not the characters themselves. Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive because he attacks the teachings of the
references individually, rather than addressing their combined
teachings. A combination of references leading to a
conclusion of obviousness cannot be defeated by
attacking all of the references individually. E.g., In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981).
As discussed above, “cross-color mapping,” given its
broadest reasonable interpretation, merely requires trans-
formation of a given input color to a different output color.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007