Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976).
With respect to independent claim 9, the representative
claim for Appellants’ first suggested grouping (including
claims 9-12, 32, 41, and 43), Appellants assert that the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness based on
the proposed combination of Kristy, Fredlund, and Yamamoto. In
particular, Appellants contend (Brief, pages 11-16; Reply Brief,
pages 4-6) that none of the applied prior art teaches or suggests
the claimed feature of “ . . . displaying a digital output medium
selection screen for guiding selection of a digital output medium
from a plurality of digital output media.” Initially, Appellants
assert (Brief, page 23) that Kristy does not provide for the
selection of output media since, in their characterization of the
disclosure of Kristy, there is no suggestion of a user selection
of output media since the skilled minilab operator is disclosed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007