Appeal No. 2006-2750
Application No. 10/104,498
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 4 and 5) that Niikawa describes all
of the limitations set forth in claim 1. Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 8 and 9) that Niikawa
does not describe “each or every use made of the image file” and does not store “any previous
times the image was edited, printed or transferred” are without merit since such arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the invention set forth in claim 1. Appellants’ argument (brief,
page 9) that “merely counting various types of uses is not the same as ‘writing a description of
each of a series of uses made of said image file’” is equally without merit since the history table
data kept by Niikawa in Figures 16 and 17 (e.g., column 9 (writing the dates of image data
transfers), column 13 (number of times the image data has been printed), column 14 (date that
the image data was printed), column 16 (number of image data that is edited), column 17 (type of
edit operation) and column 18 (latest date of image data editing)) is “writing a description of
each of a series of uses made of said image file.”
Turning to claim 23, we agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that Niikawa
describes “means for associating said event log with said image file” in Figure 11 and Tables 1
and 2 (column 11). As indicated supra, the whole purpose of Figures16 and 17 is to associate the
history of use data with the image data.
Turning next to claim 13, appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) that the applications in
Niikawa are not capable of “recording an entry in an event log when an image file is used by that
application to describe what use that application made of the image file” is without merit since
entries are made in columns 16 through 18 when the image file is edited each time by an edit
application as indicated supra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007