Appeal No. 2000-0125
Application No. 08/681,646
image, based on the design attribute of the prestored image and the analysis of the
design attribute of the customer generated image, as required by step “f)” of the claim.
We may agree with the examiner (Answer at 5) that, as a general matter, it may
be considered obvious to correct images with respect to each other in order to form a
better composite image (even though the reference does not expressly disclose such
an operation).2 However, a general notion that the images should be corrected for
compatibility with each other does not speak to the specific requirements of instant
claim 1.
We therefore do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 1, nor that of
claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 15 depending therefrom. The section 103 rejections of
claims 3, 6, and 13 rely on Oshikoshi for the requirements found in base claim 1.
(Answer at 4-5.) Since the rejections do not remedy the deficiencies we find in the
Oshikoshi reference, we do not sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 6 and 13
over Oshikoshi and Hirota, nor the section 103 rejection of claim 3 over Oshikoshi and
Ohnishi.
2 Suggestion for matching components of a composite image may be found at column 1, lines 48
through 57.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007