Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
conventional camera, but, in the case of Raney, a digital image
is suggested since the camera image interacts with a computer
(note column 10, lines 19-25). Hence, the artisan would have
recognized the strong inference that the image is a digital
image.
Further, appellants argue that Raney is silent as to the
memory being “permanent.” Again, the rejection is under the
obviousness criteria of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Artisans would have
known about permanent as well as volatile memories and the choice
of one over the other is dictated by many well known factors, one
of which is whether it is desired to maintain a record of the
stored data or images. Where retention is desired or necessary,
the artisan would have understood that a permanent memory would
be used.
Accordingly, since we have satisfactorily responded to
appellants’ concerns regarding claims 22 and 23 and appellants’
arguments do not convince us of nonobviousness, we will sustain
the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 24-26, appellants argue that no
reference of record teaches step-wise computer assisted image
analysis where the operator interacts with the computer such that
the computer assists the operator step-by-step in determining
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007