Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
of the evidence as a whole. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by
appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
1. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
10, 17, 18 and 40 based on the
teachings of Sakurada, Johnston and
Arifuku.
This rejection is fully explained on pages 4-8 of the
answer. Essentially, the examiner cites Sakurada as teaching
a camera in which user entered information is exposed onto
film along with the image of the object being photographed.
The examiner notes that Sakurada does not teach an electronic
writing pad of the type claimed, but the examiner cites
Johnston as disclosing such an electronic writing pad. The
examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to substitute Johnston’s electronic writing pad for
the keyboard input of Sakurada. The rejection also notes that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007