Appeal No. 1998-2680
Application 08/681,653
techniques could be used to derive the software necessary to implement the comparison
and automatic selecting steps of the claimed invention. Appellants are correct, however,
that this portion of the specification does not in any manner suggest that the steps of
comparing and automatically selecting, as recited in the appealed claims, were admitted
to be prior art as asserted by the examiner.
The examiner has failed to provide us with a record that supports a prima facie
case of the obviousness of the claimed invention. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS:yrt
cc: Leonard W. Treash, Jr.
Eastman Kodak Company
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007