Appeal No. 96-2281
Application No. 08/061,225
17, mailed June 27, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 26, 1995) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 19, filed August 28, 1995) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 9.
Claim 1 requires "a color balance control means which
changes the masking coefficients . . . according to the
gradation curve changed by said manual input panel"
(underlining added for emphasis). Each of the other
independent claims (5, 7, 8, and 9) includes a similar
limitation wherein the masking coefficients are selected or
set according to or in correspondence with the gradation
curve.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007