Appeal No. 2002-1983
Application No. 08/954,826
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 45,
47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 62, the Examiner
relies on Bhattacharjya for teaching a method of producing a
color conversion table based on a pre-conversion table (answer,
page 5). However, the Examiner identifies accessing the pre-
conversion table from a non-volatile storage of a computer and
storing the conversion table in the RAM storage region as the
missing elements in the reference and relies on Komatsu for such
storage components (answer, page 6). The Examiner further
characterized the use of such memories by Komatsu as an industry
standard and the reason for combining the references (id.).
Appellants acknowledge that Bhattacharjya does disclose the
conversion of scanned colors in RGB format to CMY format print
using a color conversion table for printing(brief, page 10).
Appellants, however, argue that the disclosed table is used to
convert the RGB value reported by the scanner to another RGB
value for the printer which is then converted to CMY print data
(brief, page 10 and reply brief, page 2). Additionally,
Appellants indicate that the conversion table taught by Komatsu
is formed by deleting points from the pre-conversion table and is
opposite the claimed approach (brief, page 10 and reply brief,
page 7).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007