Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
43 and 44 which requires any selection of a preferred combination
of raw and transformed images for display.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that since
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been
rebutted by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 43
and 44, as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 6-16, 24, 25, 27-37, and
41 which fall together with their base claim 43, is sustained.
Turning to the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16, 24, 25, 27-30, 33-37, 43, and 44 based on
the combination of Karasawa and Kikuchi, we sustain this rejection
as well. In making this rejection, the Examiner utilizes a similar
rationale to that discussed previously with regard to the
combination of Karasawa and Eino. In the Examiner’s view (Answer,
page 7), the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine
the transformed image teachings of Kikuchi, exemplified by the
display representation in Figures 4A and 4B, with the two image
input endoscope system of Karasawa.
After reviewing Appellants’ arguments in response (Brief,
pages 11 and 12), we find such arguments to be unpersuasive in
overcoming the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants’ initial argument calls attention to Kikuchi’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007