Appeal No. 97-3749
Application 08/360,069
of claim 1 are not found in Hirai [answer, pages 2-3]. The examiner cites Jamzadeh and
Yip as teaching the features missing in Hirai, and the examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to incorporate the teachings of Jamzadeh and Yip into Hirai
[id., pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that Hirai does not teach or suggest a modification execution
means for modifying color image data as recited in claim 1. Instead, Hirai only adjusts
transfer voltages [brief, page 8]. Appellant argues that Jamzadeh does not overcome this
deficiency in Hirai. Finally, appellant argues that the lookup tables of Yip cannot be
considered as the optimized data storing means as recited in claim 1 [id., pages 12-13].
Thus, appellant points out perceived errors in the examiner’s position which are argued to
result in the lack of a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner does not directly continue his support of this rejection in the response
to argument section of the answer, but instead, asserts that the new rejection of Yip in view
of Hirai shows that Yip teaches the modification executing means and that Yip in view of
Hirai meets the invention of claim 1 [answer, pages 8-9]. We will consider the examiner’s
new rejections below. For now, we are only interested in the initial rejection formulated by
the examiner based on Hirai in view of Jamzadeh and Yip.
We will not sustain this rejection of claims 1-8 as formulated by the examiner. We
agree with appellant that there is no motivation for the artisan to modify the teachings of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007