Appeal No. 1999-0533
Application 08/614,775
McLaughlin as teaching a graphical interface for modifying a
color value which uses two different mechanisms for modifying
the color value. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to use McLaughlin’s control mechanism
in the admitted prior art [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants make the following arguments: 1) appellants
argue that the color modification tool 34 illustrated in
Figure 1 of the application is not superimposed on the digital
image 30 as
recited in independent claims 1 and 10; 2) appellants argue
that McLaughlin is not in the same field as the claimed
invention; and 3) appellants argue that the claim 1 recitation
of a graphic readout superimposed on the digital image
adjacent to the selected region is not taught or suggested by
McLaughlin [brief, pages 4-7].
With respect to the first and third arguments, the
examiner responds that “the digital image as claimed broadly
reads on the entire display image displayed on the display
screen of the applicant’s admitted prior art. Fig. 2 of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007