Appeal No. 1999-1694
Application No. 08/474,903
a controller which controls the selection of image
data sensed by said image sensor, on the basis of said
information read by said information reader.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wada et al. (Wada) 5,258,859 Nov. 02, 1993
(filed Jul. 24, 1990)
Claims 18-29, 39, 41, 42, 44-46, and 51 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wada.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs3 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
2 Although not contested by Appellants, it is apparent that Wada does
not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since its issue date of
November 2, 1993 is after Appellants’ effective filing date of November 20,
1992. We find no information on the record, however, which would disqualify
Wada, which has a U.S. filing date of July 24, 1990, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3 The Appeal Brief was filed August 31, 1998 (Paper No. 22). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated November 17, 1998 (Paper No. 23), a
Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) and Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 26) were
filed January 14, 1999 and May 25, 1999, respectively, which have been
acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007