Appeal No. 2003-1858
Application No. 09/073,871
as a still image and provides the command for capturing that
still image. Thus, Shipp does not disclose or suggest the
recited features of claim 51, nor of claims 55 and 57-59, which
are dependent therefrom. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 51, 55 and 57-59 over Shipp cannot be
sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 56 and
60-68, we note that the Examiner has relied on Qureshi for
disclosing receiving video images from an overhead transparency
and on Ellozy for teaching the transcription of text using
optical character recognition software. However, by relying on
these references, the Examiner has not provided additional
evidence to overcome the deficiencies of Shipp as discussed above
with respect to the rejection of claims 51, 55 and 57-59, and
therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 56, 60, 61 and 66-68 over Shipp and Qureshi
and of claims 62-65 over Shipp, Qureshi and Ellozy.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007