Appeal No. 2002-1983
Application No. 08/954,826
In response, the Examiner asserts that the claims do not
require that the color spaces be in RGB or CMY (answer, page 15).
The Examiner further characterizes the conversion of data from a
grey color space (shown as R’,G’,B’ in Figure 6) to data from a
different color space (shown as R,G,B which is different from
R’,G’,B’) as the claimed different color spaces (answer, page
16). Additionally, the Examiner reasons that Komatsu is relied
on only for its disclosure of non-volatile storage for storing a
conversion table which would have been obvious to use in the
system of Bhattacharjya (answer, page 17).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). However, “the Board must not only assure that
the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007