Appeal No. 2002-1137
Application No. 08/761,854
Kuba recognizes that a memory card, when loaded into the camera, may have
an image file name identical to one that may be generated by the camera (Fig. 147). In
that event, as shown in Figure 148, a second image file that would otherwise have the
same name as that already stored on the memory card has the “serial number” portion
incremented from “02" to “03,” and thus stored with a unique file name. Col. 50, l. 51 -
col. 51, l. 30; Figure 149.
We disagree with appellants’ view that Kuba fails to teach incrementing a count
in response to an image being captured. Kuba discloses incrementing the “serial
number” portion of an image file name when the file is to be stored in memory. As
made clear in the flow chart of Figure 151, described at column 51, lines 31 through 46,
after an image is acquired (step S372), the serial number is incremented (step S377) to
produce a file name (S378), with the algorithm for avoiding duplicate names performed
at step S379. Further, comparing Figure 146, with first and second stored images when
there is no conflict between file names, with Figure 148, when there is a conflict, it is
seen that the serial number may be incremented once (Fig. 146) or twice (Fig. 148).
Further, appellants have not shown why the reference’s hash algorithm result, based on
a unique date and time, in combination with the serial number may not be considered a
“non-repeating number of a total number of images captured by the digital camera,” as
expressed by representative claim 18.
However, we disagree with a critical finding by the examiner, and therefore are in
ultimate agreement with appellants. The rejection, as set forth in the Answer,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007