Appeal No. 2003-1459 Page 7
Application No. 09/534,469
Independent claim 26 includes the step of "configuring the imaging device by
adding at least one program which provides one feature selected by the purchaser, the
at least one program controlling an operation of a processor in the imaging device."
Both Dockes and Camaisa fail to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 26. The
examiner has not presented any evidence establishing the obviousness of modifying
either Dockes or Camaisa to arrive at the subject of claim 26. Thus, a proper prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 26 has not been established and the rejections of
claim 26, and claims 27 to 34 dependent thereon, are reversed.
Claims 35 to 42
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 35 to 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockes or the rejection of claims 35 to 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Camaisa.
Independent claim 35 includes the step of "applying a digital image to a selected
program for changing such digital image to demonstrate the effect of the selected
feature, and displaying such changed digital image at the purchaser's location to aid in
the selection process." Both Dockes and Camaisa fail to teach or suggest this limitation
of claim 35. The examiner has not presented any evidence establishing the
obviousness of modifying either Dockes or Camaisa to arrive at the subject of claim 35.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007