Appeal No. 2006-2848
Application No. 09/999,791
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Steinberg.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners
of a single prior art document describe every element of the
claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a
person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Appellants argue that although Anderson discusses image
capture sequences, Anderson states that these sequences are
either built-in functions of a digital image device or loaded
into the camera after they are generated externally to the camera
(brief, sentence bridging pages 8-9). Appellants further assert
that the reference provides no teaching or suggestion for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007