Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 27
Application No. 09/845,589
Appellants rely upon the arguments presented for the reversal of
the rejection of claim 1. In addition, appellants assert (brief,
page 15) that
Claim 20 also calls for “the user sending a digital
image over a communication channel to a service
provider with instructions to the service provider,
such service provider using the digital image produces
a series of digital images of the same image where each
of the digital images of the same image have different
characteristics in accordance with the instructions and
sends such digital images series to the user.” FJCP
and Monn do not address this. Morag does not teach or
suggest anything about instructions to the service
provider that instruct the production of “a series of
digital images of the same image where each of the
digital images of the same image have different
characteristics.”
From the disclosure of Morag (col. 1, lines 52-62) of the
customer acquiring digital images; transmitting the images to the
service provider; the service provider arranging the images into
an album; printing the images and assembling the album;
including arranging images on pages and grouping pictures
together (col. 1,lines 49-51); storing the proof album at an
Internet site (col. 3, lines 41-48); generating composite images
comprising an image mosaic from a plurality of overlapping images
(col. 4, lines 52-54), and having an instruction store which
stores instructions for arrangements (col. 5, lines 16-19), we
find that an artisan would have been motivated to use a service
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007