Appeal No. 2006-2648 Page 4
Application No. 09/788,387
must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Here, the appellants argue claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13, which are subject to the
same ground of rejection, as a group. (Appeal Br. at 3-6.) At her oral hearing, the
appellants' attorney confirmed that the appellants were not arguing the patentability of
the dependent claims separately. Therefore, we select claim 12 as the sole claim on
which to decide the appeal of the group.
"With the aforementioned representation in mind, rather than reiterate the
positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the point of contention
therebetween." Ex parte Luse, No. 2006-0721, 2006 WL 2710993, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App &
Int. 2006). The examiner makes the following findings.
Sato discloses the ability to either display a newly captured image in a
clockwise direction (col. 5, lines 10-16) or always display an image at a
predetermined window, which is set as the initial position[ ] (col. 6,
lines 35-39). Both of these methods are used to place a captured image
in a “desirable'' location within a sequence of images. The method of
displaying a newly captured image in a location at a clockwise position is
desirable since it serves as an efficient way of maintaining and organizing
images. The method of always displaying a newly captured image at a
predetermined window is desirable because the user can always
recognize the last image captured at a glance (col. 6, lines 51-53). This
ability to insert an image into a specified location in a sequence of images
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007