Appeal 2007-0932
Application 10/058,924
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Answer as buttressed by the
following remarks meet the rational underpinnings required by the above-
noted case law. Moreover, to the extent Appellants have not presented
arguments to us in the Brief and Reply Brief as to any claimed feature and
any claim, they are considered to have been waived.
Initially, we make note of Appellants’ assessment of the prior art at
Specification pages 1 and 2. It was recognized there that a patient’s ID
number may be inputted from a keyboard connected to a digital camera thus
permitting the creation of a later photographic image of the patient in
conjunction with the patient’s ID within a given data folder. Additional
information, such as that set forth in the latter independent claims on appeal,
was known to be recorded on mediums in connection with a photographed
image of a patient to permit a photographer to check or otherwise “confirm”
previously entered patient information such as an ID number and image
before the subsequent photographic operation. It is this not entirely clear to
us what contribution in the art is recited in the argued independent claims on
appeal.
With respect to apparatus independent claims 15, 19, and 36, the
Examiner observes each of these claims is directed toward an apparatus and
that each claim must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013