Appeal No. 1998-0660 Application No. 08/584,501 photographed would be an obvious expedient, Appellants argue no such objections have been experienced by the inventors. The expressed inventors’ “experience” is unsupported by evidence (e.g., an affidavit), thus such experience can not be evaluated. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s position is just as speculative, being supported solely by some “obvious expedient” . 1 At this point we note that Appellants have not contested the combination of APA with Maeda (for the network, etc.) and Gordon (for customer identification). Appellants proceed to argue that Maeda and Gordon do not provide all the claimed elements. One missing element argued is “a customer identification device for selectively actuating a digital camera.” We have covered this item supra, and agree with Appellants that the art discloses none. 1We note however, that the Examiner is correct in that his expressed motivation need not be the same as Appellants’ motivation. However, the Examiner has not responded to Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s expressed motivation is nonexistent based on customer experience. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007