Appeal No. 2003-1459 Page 9
Application No. 09/534,469
Independent claim 49 specifies that the configured camera has a nonvolatile
memory, and further includes the step of "configuring the camera by storing the
purchaser provided information in the nonvolatile memory." Both Dockes and Camaisa
fail to teach or suggest these limitations of claim 49. The examiner has not presented
any evidence establishing the obviousness of modifying either Dockes or Camaisa to
arrive at the subject of claim 49. Thus, a proper prima facie case of obviousness of
claim 49 has not been established and the rejections of claim 49, and claim 50
dependent thereon, are reversed.
Claims 51 to 57
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 51 to 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockes or the rejection of claims 51 to 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Camaisa.
Independent claim 51 specifies that the configured digital camera has a
nonvolatile memory, and further includes the step of "the purchaser providing
information to be stored in the nonvolatile memory of the digital camera." Both Dockes
and Camaisa fail to teach or suggest these limitations of claim 51. The examiner has
not presented any evidence establishing the obviousness of modifying either Dockes or
Camaisa to arrive at the subject of claim 51. Thus, a proper prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007