Appeal 2006-3279
Application 10/039,668
Technology Center 2600
the reference, we cannot attempt to discern where the cited sections might
describe display of an image subject to satisfaction of the viewing condition.
Absent a convincing explanation from the Examiner as to how claim 1
is met by the relied-upon portions of the reference, we are constrained to
agree with Appellant to the extent that the rejection fails to show prima facie
anticipation of the subject matter of the claim. We thus do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under § 102(e) as being anticipated by Holub.
Moreover, Holub goes on to describe use of the virtual proof (VP)
data structure in the embodiment of Figure 3A. User color preferences may
be inputted at each node, which are needed by each node in calibrating its
rendering device. See Holub col. 13, l. 58 et seq. Even if we assume that
the color preferences may be considered a “viewing condition” for an image,
we find no description of displaying an image “subject to satisfaction” of the
viewing condition.
The rejection of dependent claim 2 (Answer 4) suggests that
calibration data may be regarded as viewing conditions (consistent with
Appellant’s disclosure), but the Final Rejection and Answer fail to point out
where Holub might disclose displaying an image subject to satisfaction of
calibration data.
Independent claims 11, 19, 21, 27, 32, 38, 45, and 54 also contain
limitations that link image display to satisfaction of viewing conditions.
Because neither the § 102(e) nor the § 103(a) rejection show disclosure or
suggestion for the relevant feature, we do not sustain the rejection of these
independent claims, nor of their depending claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013