Appeal 2007-1275
Application 09/824,248
and that "Shioji teaches a way of playing back a sequence of captured
images at a rate at which it was captured using the unique identifier (frame
rate setting stored with the image)" (Answer 10; FF 5-7, 10).
Finally, Appellant's pre-KSR briefs assert that there is no proper
motivation to combine Anderson and Shioji. (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5-6.) In
particular, Appellant argues that combining Shioji with Anderson would not
contribute to the objective of Anderson "to provide 'easily identifiable image
groups of related images.'" (Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5.) KSR forecloses this
argument. Appellant also asserts that hindsight is the only motivation for
combining Anderson and Shioji (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6). However,
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claim 13, Appellant again argues that the motion
image of Shioji is not a "plurality of discrete images" as claimed. (Br. 12.)
As discussed with respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner that the
motion image of Shioji meets the claimed "plurality of discrete images"
limitation. (Answer 10; FF 5.)
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Regarding claim 15, Appellant argues that the limitations of claim 15
are not disclosed or suggested for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 9. (Br. 13; Reply Br. 6-7.) We disagree, and as discussed above with
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013