Appeal No. 2003-0288
Application No. 09/107,920
page 5) that the rejection involves “reading each picture data
selected by the user as a separate plane” in Maruyama.
Appellants argue (brief, page 16 and 17) that:
Cyman in view of Maruyama and the present invention may
result in the same final image, as seen by the user,
however, the final image[s] are created in a
significantly different manner.
Because Cyman in view of Maruyama do not teach
multiple planes, they also do not teach the storing of
the template in a template file with each plane in
separate plane files. Similarly, they also do not
teach the automatic rendering of these multiple planes.
We agree with the appellants’ arguments. Cyman discloses
“data files of exemplary templates” 112 (Figure 1; column 6,
lines 32 through 34), and tags that serve as “tools to position
the variable information (text, graphics or images) from the data
tape and other memory sources onto the page layouts of a
document” (column 3, lines 16 through 18), however, such
templates and tags are not “instructions for the application of a
plurality of plane files to the image and instructions for
automating a process of shaping the image or the template in
order to fit them together properly in a print area” as set forth
in the claims on appeal. Cyman does not apply the template to an
image based on the instructions in the tags to automatically
render a first plane of the image, a second plane of the image
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007