Appeal No. 2002-2053
Application No. 09/329,135 Page 12
select a preferred color combination which matches the problem
color combination. Nor are we persuaded by the examiner’s
assertion (answer, page 10) that with respect to the selecting
step, the user makes the comparison and does the matching.
Because the problem and preferred color combinations are stored
in memory, we find that the claim requires that the comparison is
done by a comparison of the two sets of data in the memory, and
is not broad enough to read upon the user looking at the possible
color combinations and deciding which combination to choose.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim
29, and claims 31 and 36 which depend therefrom, is reversed.
In addition, we reverse the rejection of independent claim
9, as well as claims 11 and 19 which depend therefrom, because
the claim also recites that problem color combinations and
preferred color combinations reside in memory, which is not
taught by Netscape, and does not read on the step being performed
by a user, as advance by the examiner. We additionally reverse
the rejection of independent claim 9 because the claim requires
that the color contrast adjuster resides in memory and performs
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007