Appeal No. 2002-1657
Application No. 09/134,981
With respect to dependent claim 11, the Examiner’s rejection
is sustainable since, as discussed supra, we find Appellant’s
argument with regard to the alleged lack of color processing in
Futamura to be unpersuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s contention,
there is no continuous spectrum color selection requirement in
claim 11, but, rather, merely a claimed “uniform” color which, in
our view, does not distinguish over Futamura. Also, since
Appellant has provided no separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claims 15-17 and 19, these claims fall with
parent independent claims 1 and 12.3 Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 2 and 20, we note that, while we found
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19 previously discussed, we
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2 and 20.
Each of these claims requires the location and interpretation of a
“ . . . set of regular and singular regions” of embroidery data
3 Although Appellant (Brief, page 2) states that dependent claims 15 and
19 have been indicated to be allowable, we find nothing in the record that
indicates this is the case as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, pages 2 and
3).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007