Appeal No. 96-2497 Page 4
Application No. 08/314,788
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellants’ grouping of the claims at page 5 of the brief, all
the claims on appeal will stand or fall together. Accordingly,
we will focus on independent claim 1.
After careful consideration of the record before us
including, inter alia, the examiner’s rationale for the
rejection and appellants' arguments thereagainst, we will
sustain the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Both the examiner and appellants agree that Yamamoto
teaches a conventional self-photography system and appellants
do not dispute the examiner’s characterization of Yamamoto as
teaching the recording device and processing device elements of
instant claim 1. Appellants also do not dispute the
combinability of the applied references.
The dispute centers around the claimed detection device
and adjusting device elements. The examiner cites the grid
lines in Thayer’s Figures 11 and 12 as the claimed “detection
device” having first and second marks at positions
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007