Appeal No. 2003-0408
Application 09/019,965
With respect to independent claim 27, the examiner relied
on the rejection as set forth with respect to claim 1. Appellant
argues that claim 27 has limitations not present in claim 1, and
the examiner’s vague reference to the rejection of claim 1 fails
to establish a case of obviousness [brief, pages 9-10]. The
examiner responds that the limitations of claim 27 are
sufficiently similar to the limitations of claim 1 that the
rejection of claim 1 was sufficient to support the rejection of
claim 27 [answer, page 15].
Although we agree with the examiner that claim 27 is
sufficiently similar to claim 1 to allow the rejection of claim 1
to be used as the rejection of claim 27, the similarity of these
claims also requires that we not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 27 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. We also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 29 because it depends from claim 27.
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and
17-19 based on the teachings of Tung, Nagasawa and Endsley.
Independent claim 15 has limitations similar to claim 1. Endsley
was only cited to teach a camera device driver as recited in
claim 15, but Endsley does not overcome the deficiencies in the
basic combination of Tung and Nagasawa discussed above.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007