Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
overcomes the deficiencies noted above, we likewise do not
sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-12,
14-24, and 29-38.
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 25 and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda in
view of Kagle. The examiner's rejection essentially finds that
Takeda teaches every claimed feature except for including data
indicative of whether the image was flipped or the degree of
rotation compared to the original corresponding image. The
examiner also finds that the claims differ from Takeda in calling
for flipping or rotating the image so that the orientation of the
displayed image corresponds to the orientation of its
corresponding original image. The examiner cites Kagle as
teaching a camera that flips or rotates an image prior to display
so that the displayed image's orientation corresponds to the
orientation of the captured image. The examiner concludes that,
in view of Kagle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007