Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 16
Application No. 08/777,424
(Id.) The appellants argue that the examiner "does not address the specific features of
claim 16 which recites 'wherein said intention unit and correction means can operate
during the sequential input operation of the digital data of the images.'" (Reply Br. at
11.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 16 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]n image edit
device . . . wherein said intention input unit and correction means can operate during
the sequential input operation of the digital data of the images . . . ." Giving the claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that an image editing device
concurrently display a window allowing a user to input data for correcting an
automatically generated layout of images, correct at least one of the images of the
layout, and sequentially input digital data representing a plurality of different images.
2. Obviousness Determination
Here, we do not contest that multitasking was well known. We are unpersauded,
however, that such knowledge would have suggested concurrently displaying a window
allowing a user to input data for correcting an automatically generated layout of images,
correcting at least one of the images of the layout, and sequentially inputting digital data
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007