Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 12
Application No. 09/845,589
thereof.” From the use of the term “or” we find that the
teaching of one of the listed items is sufficient to meet the
claim language. From the disclosure of FJCP of having different
size images of the same photograph on the same photographic sheet
(second picture from the right on page 1) we find that the
limitations of claim 3 are met by the prior art. Accordingly, we
do not agree with appellants that the claim requires mirrored
images or combinations of sizes, colors and mirrored images. The
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
We turn next to claim 4. Appellants assert (brief, page 9)
that the reasons provided regarding claim 1 also apply to
claim 4. It is asserted that FJCP and Monn do not teach or
suggest that the cutting or fixing operations need not be manual.
It is additionally asserted (id.) that claim 4 calls for
starting with a digital image for the series of images with
different characteristics that could be non-photographic, such as
a graphic image. It is argued that neither FJCP nor Monn teach
or suggest that the series images need not be photographic
images.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 4) is that claim 4 is
rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007