Appeal No. 1998-2680
Application 08/681,653
select a prestored image and a desired output format [step 100]. Thus, prestored images
in Watkins are manually selected by the user at the beginning of the process. This is the
only time that prestored images are selected in Watkins. Therefore, as argued by
appellants, Watkins does not teach or suggest the step of automatically selecting a
prestored digital image as recited in the appealed claims. This deficiency in the teachings
of Watkins would be sufficient by itself to require the reversal of the examiner’s rejection.
We also note for the record that the examiner’s assertion that appellants’
specification constitutes admitted prior art with respect to the claimed invention is
untenable. The examiner points to pages 7-8 of the specification wherein it is stated:
The CPU 10, through use of appropriate software, can analyze
the digital representation of image 110 to obtain a value for a
particular style or design attribute. For example, vector
analysis, as is well known in the art, can be used to determine
the directionality of the image. The result of this analysis
produces a value which is compared to the directionality
values of various prestored digital images (previously
obtained and stored in memory) whereby the computer will
automatically select the prestored images having the closest
or dominate corresponding value in accordance with
predetermined parameters.
It is the examiner’s view that the reference to “appropriate software” and well known “vector
analysis” somehow suggests that the claimed comparison is admitted to be prior art. We
do not agree.
The specification merely establishes that techniques were known to obtain a value
for a particular style or design attribute. The specification further establishes that these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007