Appeal 2006-3279
Application 10/039,668
Technology Center 2600
2. Claims 3-6, 9-18, 20-50, 53, 54, 58, and 61-74 are rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holub and McLaughlin. Claims 11, 21,
27, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 53, and 54 are independent.
OPINION
In reference to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Holub teaches a
computer that specifies one or more view conditions for an image (Figure
3A; col. 12, ll. 10-19), and a view station (node 100) that receives the image
and the viewing conditions from the computer, displaying the image subject
to satisfaction of the viewing conditions at the viewing station (col. 9, ll. 16-
25). (Answer 3.)
Appellant submits that Holub fails to disclose or suggest specifying
viewing conditions for an image, and fails to teach display of the image
subject to the viewing conditions as recited in claim 1. (Br. 9-10.)
In response to the alleged lack of “specifying viewing conditions for
an image,” the Examiner shifts to column 12, lines 32-39 for the disclosure.
(Answer 11.) The Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s argument that
the identified section (col. 9, ll. 16-25) does not teach display of the image
subject to the viewing conditions as claimed. (See Answer 11.)
Holub is directed, as the patent title indicates, to a system for
distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites. In Holub’s
system, each network node comprises at least one rendering device. The
system distributes input color image data from one to another node, and
provides a data structure, called a “virtual proof,” in the network. The data
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013