Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
change in Havel would have suggested use of a “color look-up
table” as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues that claim 69 recites "content and/or
supporting elements" which is not shown or suggested by Nopp
or Havel. The Examiner responds to this argument on page 12
of the answer that this limitation reads on the control SAZ
and SGZ shown in Figure 4 and described at page 14, lines 3-
23. We find the Examiner’s position is reasonable on its face
and has not been challenged.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 40, 41,
61, 64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 over Nopp in view of Havel.
II. Claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 stand rejected over Nopp in view
of Havel and further in view of Iwai. These claims are not
argued separately with any specificity, therefore, they stand
or fall with independent claims 61 and 69. Applicant has
waived any specific arguments as to these dependent claims by
failing to raise them in his brief to the board. See Becton
Dickinson & Co.
v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800, 17 USPQ2d 1097, 1103
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[W]e see no reason to depart from the sound
practice
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007