Appeal No. 2003-0408
Application 09/019,965
The camera device driver performs
the entire image capture and image
retrieval command sequence as an
atomic operation, thereby causing
the captured image to be stored on
the host computer system before it
can be overwritten by the next
video frame in the video streaming
sequence generated by the camera.
This atomic operation cannot be
interrupted by events relating to
the video streaming processing,
thus ensuring that the captured
image will be retained on the host
[specification, page 20].
Since the images in Tung are sent from the camera to a remote
location over a computer network and must receive two commands
from the remote location, we agree with appellant that there is
no way that such a network can perform the claimed steps and
operations as an atomic operation which is non-interruptible as
claimed. The examiner erred in finding that the failure of the
applied prior art to discuss interruptions was evidence that the
combined system was atomic and non-interruptible. Limitations in
a claimed invention must be specifically suggested by the applied
prior art or must be clearly inherently present in the prior art.
Neither situation is present in this case.
Since we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 8, we also do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and 9-12.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007