Ex parte MAURINUS et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1998-0660                                                        
          Application No. 08/584,501                                                  

               Noting that Maeda does not specify the recording of                    
          customer identification with the digital image, the Examiner                
                    The recording of an identification for the                        
               person who is to receive a given image in a system                     
               that handles many images for many recipients is                        
               clearly useful to get each image to the right                          
               destination; the recording of such ID data for each                    
               image is shown for example in Gordon et al.  The use                   
               of customer identification recording to insure that                    
               each image reaches the right person in the system of                   
               Applicant’s prior art as modified for a network                        
               environment in view of Maeda et al. would be an                        
               expedient obvious to one of ordinary skill in the                      
               art. [Answer-pages 4 and 5.]                                           
               Appellants argue there is no motivation for the suggested              
          modifications and combination.                                              
               As to the claimed “selectively actuating the digital                   
          camera”, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s                       
          inherency theory, i.e., the customer selects whether to enter               
          a ride or not.  We find this theory to be a far stretch;                    
          selective entry to a ride is a far cry from selective camera                
          activation as claimed.                                                      
               As to the Examiner’s alternative explanation, i.e.,                    
          providing a customer with the option of being photographed in               
          order to avoid objections by customers who choose not to be                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007