Appeal No. 96-1184
Application No. 08/128,568
references teach or suggest recording photographic data for
each individual frame. We likewise agree with the examiner's
conclusion that it would have been obvious from the combined
disclosures to direct the computer to the appropriate
photographic data for each individual frame.
However, independent claims 1 and 30 recite more than
locating photographic data for each frame and making printer
adjustments according to the film type and the photographic
data. Claims 1 and 30 require converting the photographic
data based on the recording format data read in a previous
step. The examiner has failed to address the limitation of
converting the photographic data, and we find no suggestion in
any of the references to transform the photographic data in
any way. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 30 and their dependents, claims 2 through 20, 22
through 29, and 31 through 35.
Claim 36, on the other hand, does not recite converting
the photographic data. Claim 36 merely requires recording
photographic data and format data indicating the format for
the photographic data. As "format" is defined in the 1982
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007