Appeal No. 1999-1893
Application No. 08/192,306
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 5) that Sato differs
from the claimed invention “in that it fails to specifically
discuss transferring the digital image data to and from the
memory cards while encoding and decoding the image data.”
In appellants’ proposed findings of facts and conclusions
of law (Reply Brief, Appendix, page i), they argue: that each
of the claims on appeal requires “a structure in which a
plurality of ‘memory cards’ can be attached to an image data
processing
apparatus having an ‘editing machine,’ and in which data can
be transferred from the editing machine to be stored onto the
memory cards, and further such that data can be transferred
from one memory card to be stored onto another memory card”;
that “the device of Sato et al only operates so that data
scanned by an image sensor 12 in image reader 11 is stored in
memory package 17"; and that “[t]he Examiner’s Answer has not
set forth any basis as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007