Appeal No. 2003-1459 Page 10
Application No. 09/534,469
obviousness of claim 51 has not been established and the rejections of claim 51, and
claims 52 to 57 dependent thereon, are reversed.
Claims 58 to 62
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 58 to 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockes or the rejection of claims 58 to 62 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Camaisa.
Independent claim 58 includes the step of "configuring a camera to contain at
least one program which provides the features selected by the customer, the at least
one program controlling an operation of a processor in the camera." Both Dockes and
Camaisa fail to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 58. The examiner has not
presented any evidence establishing the obviousness of modifying either Dockes or
Camaisa to arrive at the subject of claim 58. Thus, a proper prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 58 has not been established and the rejections of claim 58, and
claims 59 to 62 dependent thereon, are reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 62 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dockes is reversed and the decision of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007