Appeal No. 1999-0533
Application 08/614,775
applicant’s admitted prior art teaches superimposing the
graphic readout on the digital image (the entire display)
exactly the same way as the present application does in the
disclosure (see Figs. 4-7)” [answer, page 6].
Figure 2 of the application shows a conventional color
modification tool. This tool corresponds to tool 34 shown in
Figure 1 of the application. The digital image of claims 1
and 10 is intended by appellants to read on the image 30 of
Figure 1. As argued by appellants, there is nothing
superimposed on the image 30 of Figure 1 (or Figures 2 and 3).
Appellants’
invention, on the other hand, shows a control mechanism 60 and
a graphic readout 62 superimposed on the image 30 [note
Figures 4-6]. The appropriate question is whether the
examiner’s interpretation of the claimed digital image as
reading on the entire display screen of the admitted prior art
is reasonable.
We agree with appellants that the examiner’s
interpretation of independent claims 1 and 10 is not
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007