Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 6
Application No. 08/777,424
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a layout unit for
selecting a specific layout example from a plurality of layout examples in accordance
with a predetermined criterion, and laying out a plurality of image data using said
specific layout example . . . and a correction unit for correcting at least one of said
plurality of image data of said specific layout example selected by said layout unit on
the basis of an input from said manual input unit. . . ." Claim 8 includes similar
limitations. Giving the representative claims their broadest, reasonable construction,
the limitations require laying out image data using a pattern and correcting at least one
of the image data based of an intention of a user.
b. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
"'[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007