Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 13
Application No. 08/777,424
Here, we do not contest that displaying multiple windows was well known.
Displaying an image selection window, a composite image window, and an intention
input unit may also have been well known. Regardless, we are unpersuaded such
knowledge would have suggested displaying a window showing images as laid out by
Taniguchi's album printing device concurrent with a window showing image data
inputted to the device and a window allowing a user to input data reflecting his
intentions. The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Adobe
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Taniguchi. Absent a teaching or suggestion
that an image editing device concurrently display a window showing image data
inputted to the device, a window showing images as laid out by an automatic layout unit
of the device, and a window allowing a user to input data reflecting his intentions, we
are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 12 and of claims 13, 18, and 23, which fall therewith.
C. CLAIMS 14, 15, 19, AND 24
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, "Adobe
Photoshop explicitly demonstrates correction for digital pictures, and color correction for
montages is implied, e.g., the multi-picture layouts such as Taniguchi et al. Therefore,
the combination suggests a user input for correcting some and 'all' of the pictures."
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007