Appeal 2007-0974
Application 08/979,567
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Moghadam US 5,799,219 Aug. 25, 1998
(filed Aug. 15, 1996)
Farros US 5,930,810 Jul. 27, 1999
(filed Aug. 9, 1995)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 15, 17 to 21, and 23
to 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Moghadam and
Farros.
Appellants contend throughout the briefs that neither reference
teaches nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan the use of the same
portable recording medium to record high resolution picture image data read
from a developed film, and printing service information regarding the
printing service that can be provided for the high resolution picture image
data.
We sustain.
ISSUE
Is a portable recording medium that records both high resolution
picture image data read from a developed film, and printing service
information regarding the printing services that can be provided for the high
resolution picture image data taught by or would have been suggested to the
skilled artisan by either Moghadam or Farros?
FINDINGS OF FACT
As indicated supra, Appellants describe a portable recording medium
that records high resolution picture image data as well as printing service
information that can be provided for the high resolution picture image data.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013