Appeal No. 2000-2057
Application 08/838,791
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-10 based on
Ito, Nosaki and the admitted prior art. With respect to
independent claims 1, 5 and 8, the examiner finds that Ito
teaches the claimed invention except for storing the shading
factors as claimed, calculating shading factors and determining
shading compensation as claimed, and a half-tone processing unit
as claimed. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious
to the artisan to calculate shading factors in Ito in a manner as
taught by Nosaki. The examiner also finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to determine shading compensation and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007