Appeal No. 2002-1657
Application No. 09/134,981
With respect to appealed independent claim 1, the Examiner
indicates how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of
Futamura. In particular, the Examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4)
points to the illustrations at Figures 4-6 of Futamura along with
the accompanying description beginning at column 5, line 13.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with evidence
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
In response to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection,
Appellant has offered several arguments in support of his
contention that Futamura fails to teach or suggest numerous
features of appealed claim 1. Initially, Appellant contends
(Brief, page 10; Reply Brief, page 2) that, in contrast to the
claimed invention which is directed to color processing, Futamura
is limited to monochrome, i.e., black and white, processing. We do
not find this argument persuasive so as to convince us of any error
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007