Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 10
Application No. 08/777,424
b. Obviousness Determination
As explained regarding the first point of contention, we have found that
Taniguchi lays out image data using a pattern. Figure 1 of Taniguchi shows the
components of its album printing device. We now find that those components that lay
out the image data using a pattern constitute a first unit.
As also explained regarding the first point of contention, we have found that
Adobe corrects image data based of an intention of a user. The appellants admit that
Adobe "teaches . . . the Adobe Photoshop computer program. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 5.)
We now find that the Adobe Photoshop computer program constitutes a second unit.
Because Taniguchi teaches a first unit to lay out image data using a pattern, and
Adobe teaches a second unit to correct image data based of an intention of a user, we
are persuaded that the combined teachings of the references would have suggested a
first unit lay out image data using a pattern and a second unit correcting at least one of
the image data based of an intention of a user. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 8 and of claims 9, 10, and 21, which fall therewith.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007