Appeal No. 2003-0557
Application 09/121,760
an analysis module configured to analyze said raw image data
during said image processing process in order to identify one or
more categories to which each of said images may relate, said
analysis module being run by said processor; and
category tags attached by said analysis module to each of
said images corresponding to said categories, said category tags
stored with each of said images, thereby enabling said processor
to automatically sort said images into different categories.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Parulski et al. (Parulski) 5,633,678 May 27, 1997
Jamzadeh 5,889,578 Mar. 30, 1999
(filing date Oct. 26, 1993)
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 6,028,611 Feb. 22, 2000
(filing date Aug. 29, 1996)
Claims 1, 5-21 and 25-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon
Jamzadeh as to claims 1, 5-7, 9, 16-21, 25-27, 29 and 36-42. The
examiner has added Anderson to Jamzadeh as to claims 8, 12-15, 28
and 32-35, and the examiner has added Parulski to Jamzadeh as to
claims 10, 11, 30, 31, 43 and 44.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for the
appellant's positions, and to the answer for the examiner's
positions.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007