Appeal No. 2006-1776
Application No. 10/075,976
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable as obvious over Jennel in view of Hinton.
The appellant argues that the reference to Jennel does not disclose that a user
submit an image to produce a windowed image nor the window being movable relative
to the image or a portion of a package wrapper that includes an image thereon is shown
on the display of the system [See Brief at p. 4], and that Hinton fails to show either as
well [See Brief at p. 5].
The examiner responds that the appellant is not positively claiming displaying the
package wrapper along with the windowed image on the display means; appellant is
only using the word “displaying'' which does not require the display means, or that
alternatively, the background of Jennel's display means 22 could be considered as the
image of the package [See Answer at p. 5]. As to Hinton, the examiner argues that
Hinton discloses windowed image Fig. 2., via image 24 is movable relative to the image,
via by customer's choice of the use of border 21; customers can select from a variety of
different borders 21 to match with their image 24, in that case the process of choosing
the best border and checking out if it match with the image, could be considered as
moving the windowed image 24 relative to the image via respect to the selected border
21. [See Answer at p. 6]
The appellant then responds to the examiner’s first argument that claim 1 and 8
refer to displaying a package wrapper image, and therefore simply printing the selected
image on a package wrapper does not meet this limitation [See Reply Brief at p. 2], and
that the background in Jennel does not represent the package wrapper [See Reply
Brief at p. 4]. The appellant’s response to the examiner’s argument relating to Jennel
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007