Appeal No. 2001-0925 Application No. 08/897,401 The obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 27 is reversed because we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) that “[n]one of the cited references teach or suggest reading image data into a buffer before applying filters . . . . ” The obviousness rejection of claims 20, 28 and 36 is reversed because the examiner’s reasoning (answer, pages 8 through 10) falls far short of a convincing line of reasoning for modifying the filter library disclosed by Le Gall to correspond to the specifically recited filter library in the claims on appeal. DECISION The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 17 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 17, 21 through 25 and 29 through 35, and is reversed as to claims 18 through 20, 26 through 28 and 36. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007