Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
filming . . ." [answer, page 9]. The Clark et al. reference in
combination with Wood et al. and Reeder fails to cure the
deficiencies of Wood et al. and Reeder noted above with respect
to claim 59. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth
above.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 69 and 71-73 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 69 and 71-73.
Accordingly, we reverse.
A) Features Missing from Proposed Combination
With respect to independent claim 69, we find Appellants'
argument with respect to the use of "lists" to be unpersuasive,
as it does not address the combination rejection made by the
Examiner. However, Appellants also argue at pages 16-18 of the
brief that the references do not disclose or suggest use of "an
exemplary image obtainable via the protocol." We find this
argument persuasive for the reason noted above with respect to
claim 59.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007