Appeal No. 1998-2683
Application 08/579,386
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Passaic, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 32 and
33, the examiner refers to the admitted prior art but admits
that the admitted prior art “does not teach selection between
generating a black color containing a non black colorant and
generating a black color that does not contain a non black
colorant (i.e., the black color is true black), depending on
whether the background is to be printed with color containing
a black colorant” [answer, page 4]. The examiner cites Vaughn
as teaching the concept of determining whether a black pixel
should be printed using a black colorant or process black.
The examiner simply asserts the obviousness of the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007