Appeal No. 2007-0369
Application No. 09/439,626
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 29 through 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Taylor. The Examiner’s rejection
is set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. Throughout the opinion we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that Fisher does not disclose or suggest indicating
the unavailability of at least one other option associated with the consumer
item as recited in the independent claims. Rather, Appellants assert that
Fisher does not disclose any other option which depends upon the option
selected. See page 6 of the Brief.
In response the Examiner states that the other option is texture data.
Further the Examiner states, on page 6 of the Answer:
The texture data is mapped one-to-one with the fabrics, but there are
many of them and they are options. There are no limitations in the
claim language that limit the other option from being dependent upon
the original option. As far as indicating, there will be a message and
there will be no 3D image (another form of indicating) because the
texture data was not available.
The Appellants rebut the Examiner’s rationale, on page 5, of the
Reply Brief, arguing that the “texture data” of Fisher does not represent an
option as the user has no control to select a texture to be applied to the
selected fabric.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013