Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of independent
claims 1 and 18 or of claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 17 and 40 which
depend from claim 1.
2. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 13,
14, 17, 40 and 41 based on the
teachings of Ishii, Johnston and
Arifuku.
This rejection is fully explained on pages 8-10 of the
answer. Essentially, the examiner cites Ishii as teaching a
camera in which user entered information is exposed onto film
along with the image of the object being photographed. In
this regard, Ishii is similar to Sakurada as discussed above.
Johnston and Arifuku are applied in the same manner discussed
above. Ishii has the additional teaching that arbitrary
information can be supplied to an image memory using an input
device other than a keyboard [column 14, lines 47-57].
Appellant argues that Ishii does not teach or suggest
a writing pad for accepting a sketch drawn by a user.
Appellant also repeats the arguments with respect to Johnston
and Arifuku [brief, page 9]. Appellant also argues that the
portion of Ishii noted above simply suggests pattern
recognition of an alpha-numeric character and does not suggest
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007