Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 11
Application No. 08/777,424
B. CLAIMS 12, 13, 18, AND 23
The examiner admits, "Taniguchi fails to demonstrate 'wherein said display unit
comprises a first display portion for displaying said plurality of input image data, a
second display portion for displaying layout images laid out by said automatic layout
unit, and a third display portion for expressing the intention input by said intention input
unit, and concurrently performs display operations of said first to third display portions.'"
(Examiner's Answer at 15.) Taking official notice "that it was notoriously well known in
the art of compound document creation and or [sic] desktop publishing (e.g., text and
pictures,), to have an image selection display portion, a composite image display
portion, and intention input unit, for modifying compound document, particularly in a
multi-window environment," (id.), the examiner asserts "[i]t would have been
obvious . . . to . . . modify[] the device of Taniguchi to display these regions in order to
facilitate selection of images to be replacements in a template." (Id.) The appellants
argue, "the generic interfaces alluded to by the Examiner would not be enough to
suggest use of the specifically claimed display unit in the system of the Taniguchi, et al.
reference." (Reply Br. at 10.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 12 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]n image edit
apparatus comprising . . . a display unit . . . wherein said display unit comprises a first
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007