Appeal No. 2006-2648 Page 12
Application No. 09/788,387
image data in a selected position of a sequence of image data in accordance with a
user's instruction when the image is acquired.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill, No. 2003-
0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). The question of obviousness
is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, as mentioned regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, and 12-14, Sato inserts newly
acquired image data in either the latest position of a sequence of in the same initial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007