Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 13
Application No. 09/845,589
At the outset, we make reference to our findings, supra,
with respect to the teachings and suggestions of FJCP and Monn.
From our review of claim 4, we find that the claim is similar to
claim 1, but recites the cutting and fixing steps instead of
steps allowing them to occur. The claim does not recite that the
digital images are photographic images. However, neither does
the claim preclude the images from being photographic images.
From the disclosure of photographic images in FJCP and Monn, we
find that the teachings of FJCP and Monn would have suggested the
limitations of claim 4, for the same reasons as we sustained the
rejection of claim 1, and additionally note that because FJCP
discloses Smiles By WireŽ, that the photographs are inherently
digital. We are not persuaded by appellants assertions that the
cutting and fixing steps need not be manually done because the
claim language is met by the disclosure in the prior art of
tearing (which suggests cutting) and fixing of the photographs
into a collage. The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
We turn next to claim 6. Appellants assert (brief, page 9)
that “[c]laim 6 calls for fixing the cut out series of images
using an adhesive. FJCP says nothing about cutting out or
adhering a series of images. Monn discusses applying adhesive to
the front and back of a single photocopy. Nothing is suggested
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007