Appeal No. 1998-0660
Application No. 08/584,501
photographed would be an obvious expedient, Appellants argue
no such objections have been experienced by the inventors.
The expressed inventors’ “experience” is unsupported by
evidence (e.g., an affidavit), thus such experience can not be
evaluated. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s position is just as
speculative, being supported solely by some “obvious
expedient” . 1
At this point we note that Appellants have not contested
the combination of APA with Maeda (for the network, etc.) and
Gordon (for customer identification). Appellants proceed to
argue that Maeda and Gordon do not provide all the claimed
elements.
One missing element argued is “a customer identification
device for selectively actuating a digital camera.” We have
covered this item supra, and agree with Appellants that the
art discloses none.
1We note however, that the Examiner is correct in that
his expressed motivation need not be the same as Appellants’
motivation. However, the Examiner has not responded to
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s expressed
motivation is nonexistent based on customer experience.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007