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
states:
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007