Appeal No. 2001-0925
Application No. 08/897,401
Claims 17, 19, 21 through 25, 27 and 29 through 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall
in view of Baroody.
Claims 18 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of Baroody and Foley.
Claims 18 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of Baroody and Parulski.
Claims 20, 28 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of Baroody, Parulski,
Keith and Calarco.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 31 and 33)
and the answer (paper number 32) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 17,
21 through 25 and 29 through 35, and reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 18 through 20, 26 through 28 and 36.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4)
concerning the teachings of Le Gall. Le Gall discloses a method
and system for transforming image data between formats used
at the originating device 12, 100 and the receiving unit 15,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007