Appeal 2007-0932
Application 10/058,924
presented to us, as noted earlier, as to independent claims 15 and 19 anyway.
The Reply Brief does not contest the Examiner’s remarks with respect to the
rejection of claims 8, 18, and 22 made at pages 21 and 22 of the Answer.
We further note here that the ultrasound image capture module of
figure 1 of McDonald is discussed at columns 5 through 8 noting that certain
descriptor fields for annotated information are recorded together with the
image itself by means of the MPEG encoding system utilized in McDonald.
The Examiner has provided evidence in TIFF that it was well-known to
provide image description information, document name information as well
as the actual image, together in the header of an analogous TIFF format
imaging coding approach. It is this concept of recording image
identification information associated with the image format recording
technique itself that is the basis for the Examiner’s rejection and the un-
rebutted responsive remarks at pages 21 and 22 of the Answer.
Next we treat the fifth stated rejection of claims 14 and 23 through 36
(including independent claims 14, 23, and 36) as being obvious over Allen
alone. Allen is also relied upon in addition to McDonald and Wang as to
independent claim 41 in a sixth stated rejection.
In formulating the rejection of independent claims 14, 23, 36, and 41,
the Examiner recognizes that these claims require the input of destination
information in a digital camera utilized before the photographing act itself
occurs. The Examiner’s basic position considers that it would have been
obvious to have performed this act of data entry before the actual
photography based upon a design choice analysis even though the Examiner
recognizes that Allen alone or together with the other references would
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013