Appeal 2007-1544
Application 09/984,227
Appellant may sustain this burden by showing that, where the
Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the Examiner failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have done what Appellant did. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39
(1966); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360-1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.
2006). The mere fact that all the claimed elements or steps appear in the
prior art is not per se sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious
to combine those elements. United States v. Adams, Id.; Smith Industries
Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d
1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in holding claims 1 and 11
to be obvious over LeClair in view of Henderson, because neither LeClair
nor Henderson teaches setting a predetermined area in the photograph image
as an area for a test print. Appellant argues that LeClair generates a plurality
of thumbnail images, i.e., reduced-size versions of the full original image,
which are printed with varied parameters (FF 6); thus, according to
Appellant, LeClair contains no selection of a predetermined area. Appellant
further argues that the system of Henderson, in which a printed image is
passed over a plurality of densitometers, one or more of which will detect an
area of high-density printing on an image, also fails to set a predetermined
area for a test print.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013