Appeal No. 97-3749
Application 08/360,069
Hirai with those of Jamzadeh and Yip. Jamzadeh appears to be especially irrelevant to the
claimed invention because it is directed to the synchronization of the printing operation to a
preliminary scanning operation. Although Jamzadeh does modify the resultant images
based on the scanned data, there is no suggestion in Jamzadeh that the image data
should be modified, optimized and stored as recited in the claimed invention. Yip teaches
the modification of digital image data to control the gray scale appearance of a hard copy
record of the image as well as a video output of the image. We can find no basis,
however, to combine the teachings of Yip with those of Hirai in the absence of a hindsight
attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention. Even if one assumed arguendo that the
teachings of Hirai and Yip suggest combining their teachings, there still is no teaching of
the claimed optimized data storing means as recited in independent claim 1. The lookup
tables of Yip do not meet this claim recitation for reasons which will be made more
apparent below. Since there is no basis to combine the teachings of Hirai, Jamzadeh and
Yip as proposed by the examiner, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 as
presented by the examiner.
We now consider the examiner’s new ground of rejection of claims 1-3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Yip in view of Hirai. Although
our previous discussion established that the teachings of the three cited references do not
suggest the claimed invention in the manner proposed by the examiner, we consider this
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007