Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of dependent claim 14. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at
1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14 as
being obvious over Browning in view of Manchester for the same reasons set
forth in the rejection.
Group D, claim 17
Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Ogawa in view of Manchester.
Appellant argues that Ogawa’s digital camera with a self-timer does
not teach nor suggest the language of claim 17 that requires “a holder that
holds the data capture component at a predetermined position to allow for
continuous hands-free capture of data” [brief, page 10]. Appellant further
argues that neither Ogawa nor Manchester teaches or suggests the claimed
artificial intelligence component that determines an optimal screen
orientation for the display based at least upon a user’s position [id.].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 14]. The examiner asserts that
Ogawa teaches a self-timer that can be operated in conjunction with a
continuous shooting mode (col. 5, lines 42-48) [id.]. The examiner further
notes that use of Ogawa’s self-timer shooting mode reasonably requires a
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007