Appeal 2007-1652
Application 09/776,058
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding representative claim 1,2 the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Anderson discloses a digital camera with every claimed feature
except for (1) an input device configured to respond to a manual input
selecting one of plural image filters, and (2) a processor configured to
process pixel data responsive to the selected image filter to provide filtered
image data as claimed. The Examiner cites Kim as teaching such features
and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Anderson to provide such a
filtering capability to enable editing the image to have a selected color, thus
reducing the space needed to provide several color filter options (Answer 3-
4).
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine Anderson
with Kim as the combination would change a principle of operation of the
prior art. Appellants contend that because the color and burst signals of Kim
are analog signals, and Anderson teaches using digital signals, Anderson
must be modified to use analog signals. In this regard, Appellants argue that
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 together as a group. See Br. 5.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013