Appeal No. 2003-0557
Application 09/121,760
in the claim, as well as at the time of image capture as we have
interpreted at claim earlier in this opinion as to this feature.
To the extent actually recited in the claims on appeal, the
examiner's basic view that the image data manager 30 comprises
the processing element, the analysis module, and the category
tags and performance of image capturing and analyses functions is
consistent with the noted features of the representative claim 1
on appeal to the extent recited thereon.
Lastly, the examiner's mention of Official Notice at page 11
of the answer is noted. While the general use of such an
approach is generally highly disfavored, our decision here is not
based upon any reliance upon Official Notice since the evidence
of record relied upon by the examiner for obviousness clearly
does not require a connection of a camera to a computer where
image data capture by a camera would be downloaded to a computer
for further processing as argued by the examiner. Such is not
required by the representative claim 1 on appeal anyway and the
examiner's view at page 10 of the answer and our embellishment
thereon earlier in this opinion indicates that the scope of the
subject matter of the claim does not require a separate
recitation of a camera. The claim permits the data inputting
from the scanner 32 on the bus 34 into the IDM 30 and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007