Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 4
Application No. 08/777,424
free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of
rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that
rejection based solely on the selected representative claim." Id., 63 USPQ2d at 1465.
Here, the appellants stipulate, "the claims can be grouped as follows: Group I -
claims 1-7, 17, 20; Group II - claims 8, 9, 10, 21. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 3.) We select
claims 1 and 8 from the respective groups as representative of the claims therein.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the following points of contention
therebetween:
- correcting image data
- first and second units.
1. Correcting Image Data
Admitting that "Taniguchi de facto lacks an explicit recitation of 'correcting at
least one of said image data,'" (Examiner's Answer at 7), the examiner asserts, "[i]t
would have been obvious . . . to combine the techniques in Photoshop™ with
Taniguchi, by reprogramming the console of Taniguchi with algorithms similar to those
employed in Photoshop™, in order to center pictures which were off-center (per
cropping), and in order to improve color and luminosity in poorly exposed photos." (Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007