Appeal No. 1999-2023
Application No. 08/556,119
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 In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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).
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected
(brief at page 4) that all the claims stand or fall together.
We consider the exemplary claim 8 for our analysis. After
discussing in detail each of the references at pages 4 and 5
of the examiner’s answer, the examiner asserts, id. at page 5,
that:
It would have been obvious . . . to use the means
for automatically transforming the hair image as
taught by Steir and Hayashi in the montage composing
system of Sato because they provide a facial image
enhancement system that makes it easier to overlay
an image on top another image without making the
superimposed image look unnatural.
Appellants discuss the combination of Sato, Steir, and Hayashi
at pages 5-8 of appellants’ brief and conclude, id. at page 8,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007