Appeal No. 2003-1459 Page 8
Application No. 09/534,469
Thus, a proper prima facie case of obviousness of claim 35 has not been established
and the rejections of claim 35, and claims 36 to 42 dependent thereon, are reversed.
Claims 43 to 48
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 43 to 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockes or the rejection of claims 43 to 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Camaisa.
Independent claim 43 includes the step of "storing the designee identifying
information [provided by the purchaser] in the selected digital imaging device." Both
Dockes and Camaisa fail to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 43. The examiner
has not presented any evidence establishing the obviousness of modifying either
Dockes or Camaisa to arrive at the subject of claim 43. Thus, a proper prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 43 has not been established and the rejections of claim
43, and claims 44 to 48 dependent thereon, are reversed.
Claims 49 and 50
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 49 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockes or the rejection of claims 49 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Camaisa.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007