Appeal 2007-1544
Application 09/984,227
U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as claims 2-10, 14-17, and 24-30 dependent
therefrom.4
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and
13 as obvious over LeClair in view of Henderson and Tsai, for the same
reasons noted supra with regard to parent claim 11, and because Tsai fails to
overcome the deficiencies asserted with respect to LeClair and Henderson.
We agree with Appellant that Tsai contains no disclosure that overcomes the
previously discussed deficiencies of LeClair and Henderson. As a result, we
find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18,
because neither LeClair nor Henderson teaches “selecting a portion of the
pre-scanned image data; generating a plurality of digital images, each having
the selected portion … [and] printing a test print comprising the plurality of
digital images.” We agree with Appellant. As noted supra, neither LeClair
nor Henderson teaches selecting a portion of the image. As a result, neither
reference teaches generating a plurality of digital images, each having the
selected portion. We therefore find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18, as well as claims 19-23 dependent therefrom.5
Because Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in holding
claims 1-11 and 14-30 to be obvious over LeClair in view of Henderson, we
will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
4 We need not reach Appellant’s arguments concerning dependent claims 24
and 25.
5 We need not reach Appellant’s arguments concerning dependent claim 20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013