Appeal No. 1999-2040
Application No. 08/475,023 Page 14
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).
The examiner's position (answer, page 6) is that although
figures 17 and 18 of Spaulding "teach a transformation which
preserves a hue value, Spaulding does not explicitly show a step
to make the ratios of the components of the adjusted color and
the nominal color the same." To overcome this deficiency of
Spaulding, the examiner turns to the admitted prior art (page 2)
for a teaching of the step of making "the ratio of the components
in the adjusted color to be the same ratio of color components in
a nominal color" because preserving hue values would improve
reproduction quality.
We observe that claim 2 depends from claim 1. We reverse
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
admitted prior art does not make up for the deficiencies of
Spaulding.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3-5, 10, 15, 16, 19,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Spaulding and Oshikoshi. With respect to claims
3-5, 15, and 16 the examiner's position (answer, page 6) is that
"Spaulding does not explicitly show the step of determining a
limit parameter value to separate two regions." The examiner
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007