Appeal No. 2003-0288
Application No. 09/107,920
Reference is made to the last Office Action in the record
(paper number 21), the brief (paper number 23) and the answer
(paper number 24) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17 through 28.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 18, the examiner is
of the opinion (paper number 21, page 4) that Cyman discloses all
of the limitations of these claims except for specifically
stating that “the tags include instructions for automating a
process of shaping the image or template in order to fit them
together properly in a print area.” For such a teaching, the
examiner turns to Maruyama (paper number 21, pages 4 and 5), and
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Cyman to [sic, in]
combination with the key information template instructions of
Maruyama to allow for a control means to change or modify the
picture data so as to correspond to the shape data included in
the key information that corresponds to the requirements of the
user selected template.” The examiner states (paper number 21,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007