Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 25 and
27. We note at the outset that appellant's arguments are
directed to the Kagle reference and its combination with Takeda.
In short, appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
examiner's interpretation of Takeda on page 11 of the answer
which we find reasonable.
Kagle teaches automatically reorienting a captured image
responsive to the orientation of an image sensor to correct for
different orientations of a camera. Sensor 30 detects camera
orientation and, in one embodiment, a flag is embedded within the
formatted image object that specifies the camera's orientation
when the image was captured. Actual rotation can occur outside
the camera by a computer or other processing device prior to
viewing the image [Kagle, col. 3, lines 30-67]. In another
embodiment, the camera itself automatically rotates the image
responsive to the orientation of the image sensor by reordering
the image's pixel values [Kagle, col. 4, lines 1-60].
We agree with the examiner that Kagle's teaching is
reasonably combinable with Takeda essentially for the reasons
stated by the examiner. In short, we see no reason why Kagle's
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007