Appeal No. 2001-2697
Application No. 08/770,048 Page 7
one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a method of
reproducing a composite image as recited in claim 2.
Specifically, appellants assert (brief, page 13) that McDonald
teaches scanning the image once at high resolution and
subsequently converting the image to a lower resolution for
editing in order to speed the transmission and editing process.
It is further argued (id.) that Zelten does not have any
teachings regarding the incorporation of features into a scanned
image such as text, margins, etc. Appellants further argue
(brief, page 14) that the image editing and reproduction
techniques of McDonald and Zelten are mutually exclusive and that
“[a]dditionally, since McDonald initially scans the image at a
high resolution suitable for final processing and is able to
convert it to a lower resolution for processing and editing,
there is no motivation to perform a first lower resolution scan
and a second higher resolution scan for image processing and
reproduction.”
With respect to the examiner's assertion (answer, page 6)
that the motivation to combine McDonald and Zelten is to free
memory space for storing other data, appellants (reply brief,
pages 3-5) argue to the effect that neither McDonald nor Zelten
provide any teachings regarding freeing memory because Zelten
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007