Appeal 2007-1544
Application 09/984,227
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Henderson US 5,450,165 Sep. 12, 1995
LeClair US 5,717,838 Feb. 10, 1998
Tsai US 6,043,476 Mar. 28, 2000
Claims 1-11 and 14-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over LeClair in view of Henderson. Claims 12 and 13 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LeClair in view of
Henderson and Tsai.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because neither LeClair
nor Henderson teaches setting a predetermined area in a photographic image
as an area for a test print, then printing a plurality of versions of that area
while varying image processing parameters. The Examiner contends that
Henderson’s system, in which a plurality of densitometers serves to detect
an area of defined toner density, meets Appellant’s limitation.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).3
3 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013