Appeal 2007-1275
Application 09/824,248
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Shioji discloses the recited
"determination processor" and "image processor" limitations of claim 9.
(Answer 4-5, 8-10; FF 6-10.) Appellant contends that "SHIOJI does not
disclose the continual still image photographing operation as recited in
claim 9." (Reply Br. 3; see also Br. 7-10, Reply Br. 4-5.) However, as the
Examiner correctly found, the motion image of Shioji is "a series of captured
still images captured at a frame rate (interval)." (Answer 8; FF 5.)
Appellant also contends that "[t]here is no disclosure whatever in
SHIOJI that an operator would select a frame rate for any operation related
to obtaining still images." (Br. 9.) However, the Examiner correctly found
that Anderson teaches this limitation (Answer 9-10; FF 2) and that Shioji
also meets this limitation because it "discloses the ability to select a frame
rate for any operation related to obtaining still images by providing the user
the ability to select different frame rates (i.e. 30 fps or 15 fps)" (Answer 10;
FF 5-6).
Moreover, Appellant asserts that "SHIOJI does not disclose that a
unique indicator is used to determine whether a plurality of discrete images
were obtained in a continual still image photographing operation." (Reply
Br. 4.) However, the Examiner correctly found that "Anderson teaches the
ability to tag the images as a time lapse (continual still) and to specify the
interval at which they were captured" (Answer 10; FF 2-3) and that "one
would be motivated to reproduce the time-lapse image using the same speed
at which it was captured" (Answer 10; FF 4-5). In addition, the Examiner
correctly found that in Shioji "the CPU [19] determines a still image
reproduction mode or a motion image reproduction mode" (Answer 7; FF 9)
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013