Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
images, such as the camera disclosed by Kagle, are typically
hand-held devices. See, e.g., Kagle, col. 4, lines 48-50
(teaching detecting the camera's orientation by sensing the
position of a user's hands or fingers on the camera). In our
view, such a teaching would have reasonably suggested to the
skilled artisan the benefits of such hand-held devices, such as
portability, ease of manipulation, etc. Secondly, we note that
appellants have not persuasively rebutted the examiner's position
that incorporating Takeda's system into a smaller, portable
device would have been an obvious modification. The examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 25 and 27 is therefore sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner's rejection
with respect to claims 1-24 and 28-39 on appeal. We have,
however, sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to
claims 25 and 27. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1-25 and 27-39 is affirmed-in-part.
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007