Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 41, which includes the feature of a digital
input medium selection screen, based on the combination of
Kristy, Fredlund, and Yamamoto. Although Appellants have grouped
claim 41 in the grouping including claims 9-12, 32, 41, and 43,
separate arguments for claim 41 have been presented by Appellants
in the Briefs which have been discussed by the Examiner in the
Answer. After reviewing the arguments of record in the Briefs
and Answer, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that
Fredlund provides a teaching to the skilled artisan of utilizing
plural digital input media in a photofinishing operation such as
in Kristy, the selection of which digital input media, in our
view, would be obviously recognized and appreciated by the
skilled artisan as being implemented by Kristy’s interactive
video display terminal.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 33, grouped and argued
separately by Appellants, based on the combination of Kristy,
Fredlund, and Yamamoto, we sustain this rejection as well. The
limitations in claim 33, which is dependent on claim 9 discussed
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007