Appeal No. 2003-0557
Application 09/121,760
patentable weight if the structure is already known, regardless
of whether it has ever been used in anyway in connection with
popcorn (emphasis added)." Such reasoning obviously applies to
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Schrieber confirms the
guidance provided in Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1987), that a recitation with respect to the manner
in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not
differentiate the claimed apparatus for a prior art apparatus
satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Note also
Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546, 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1989) and In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238,
CCPA 1967).
Appellant's position at the bottom of page 8 of the brief
that Jamzadeh's system does not teach or suggest performing
automatic image analysis of raw image data at the time of image
capture inside an integrated hand-held capture device is
misplaced. The claim does not require that such analysis occur
at the time of image capture. The claim merely requires that the
analysis occur "during an image processing process." In any
event, our earlier discussion in this opinion clearly indicates
that we consider Jamzadeh to not only perform the image analysis
during an image processing process to the extent actually recited
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007