Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration
of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s
decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and
argument.” Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant argues that Farnung does not teach limitations of dependent
claims 10 and 11 because of their dependency on claim 5. Particularly,
Farnung does not teach modifying the color component of the pixel if the
pixel value falls outside the lower and upper offset points on the
reproduction curve. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claims 5 through 9 above, and we agree with Appellant.
Regarding claims 12 through 16, Appellant asserts that Farnung does
not teach modifying mid-range values by interpolating between light and
dark areas of the image to blend the transitions between these areas when the
pixel component values fall between the lower and upper ends of the
threshold. Appellant further argues that neither Kishida nor Hieda nor
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013