Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
that an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening
brief . . . is waived.”).
Appellant’s sole argument (found on page 6 of the brief)
for overturning this rejection is:
Iwai et al does not show or suggest appellant’s
color transforming means recited in claims 61 and 69
and since claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 depend from one
of claims 61 and 69, they are likewise allowable
over the combination of Nopp, Havel and Iwai et al,
whether taken alone or in combination for the
reasons stated above with respect to claims 61 and
69.
Once again, Appellant makes the mistake of attacking the
teachings of Iwai individually, rather than in combination
with the teachings of Nopp and Havel. Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097, 231 USPQ at 380; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426, 208 USPQ at
882. As discussed above, Nopp as modified by Havel teaches
the claimed color transforming means. Iwai further teaches
additional elements of certain dependent claims. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Even if the claims were argued separately, however, they
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the teachings of Iwai combined with the previously
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007