Ex parte MAURINUS et al. - Page 7

                 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                                                                             
                          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.                                                                                


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007