Appeal No. 1997-4093
Application No. 08/115,209
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Thurm et al. (Thurm) 4,279,502 July 21,
1981
Fursich et al. (Fursich) 4,561,768 Dec.
31, 1985
Terashita 5,148,213
Sept. 15, 1992
Claims 1 through 6 and 10 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the phrase “said last
named color density difference curves” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 1 through 6 and 10 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the improvement portion
of Jepson-type claim 1 is not adequately described or enabled.
Claims 1 through 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art of the
preamble of Jepson-type claim 1 (as represented by Fursich and
Thurm) in view of Terashita.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number
18), the briefs (paper numbers 20 and 23), and the answer
(paper number 21) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007