Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
In response, Appellants’ arguments, aside from a general
assertion at page 9 of the Brief, do not attack the combinability
of the Karasawa and Eino references.2 Rather, these arguments
center on the assertion that, even if combined, the references do
not suggest Appellants’ invention as claimed. In particular,
Appellants assert that the combination of Karasawa and Eino does
not disclose “...the output of two synthetic images, wherein the
two synthetic images include both raw and transformed images” nor
“the capability of selecting the preferred combination of raw and
transformed images making up the synthetic images which are
outputted.” (Brief, page 10).
After careful review of the Karasawa and Eino references in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. We agree with the
Examiner that Karasawa discloses the output of two synthetic
2 Although Appellants have indicated that independent claim 44 stands or
falls separately, no separate arguments for patentability based on the
language of claim 44 have been set forth in the Brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007