Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121
1 REJECTIONS
2 Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble
3 and Nishi.
4 Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble
5 and Nakamura.
6 The Examiner applied Humble in both rejections to show all of the claim
7 limitations except for the use of a component video device, as contrasted with a
8 generic video device. The Examiner applied Nishi and Nakamura each for their
9 teachings of the advantages of a component video device species of the generic
10 video device of Humble.
11 ISSUES
12 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
13 • Whether the art applied shows or suggests acquiring a digital picture
14 triggered by the step of obtaining the weight of a produce item (All claims;
15 Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 2-4)
16 • Whether the art applied shows or suggests waiting for a stable wait period of
17 the produce item on the weight scale (Claims 7 and 21).
18 In particular, the Appellant contends that the trigger in Humble is a sensor, not
19 a scale, that the Examiner has admitted the scale is not the trigger, and that the
20 Examiner has misconstrued the law of open ended transitions such as “comprising”
21 to read the triggering limitation out of the claim. The Appellant also argues that
22 Humble teaches that the camera may be configured so that it does not require an
23 image of the weight, or even that the weighing be done.
24
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013