Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
as using the photofinishing lab for producing a permanent record
of images while the unskilled consumer uses the lab for producing
image prints.
After reviewing the disclosure of Kristy in light of the
arguments of record, we do not agree with Appellants’ interpre-
tation of such disclosure. Our review of Kristy reveals that,
while there is indeed a discussion (column 4, lines 6-27) of the
use of the photofinishing lab by a skilled lab operator for pro-
ducing a permanent record of images on, for example, an optical
compact disc, Kristy also discloses (column 4, lines 58-62) that
the lab operator can alternatively utilize a thermal printer for
supplying image prints to a customer.
Given the clear teaching in Kristy to provide the user with
a choice of digital output media, i.e., optical disc permanent
record or thermal printer produced prints, it is our view that
the skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated the
obviousness of enabling such selection of output media through a
display screen, especially in view of the fact that an inter-
active video display terminal 16 is provided as an integral part
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007