Appeal No. 2006-2750
Application No. 10/104,498
Appellants’ argument (brief, page 12) that Niikawa does not disclose storage of an
electronic event log in non-volatile memory as in claim 44 is without merit since the memory
card 8 in Niikawa is non-volatile memory.
With respect to appellants’ argument (brief, page 13) that Niikawa does not teach
“downloading an image file with an intent instruction” as required by claims 2 and 24, we agree
with the examiner’s position (answer, pages 10 and 11) that an “intent instruction” is broad
enough to cover an “intent” by Niikawa to permanently store the image file.
Appellants’ argument (brief, page15) that Niikawa does not disclose an “event log within
said image file” as required by claims 6, 28, 39 and 50 because the image data and the history
data are in ‘SEPARATE FILES’” is without merit because Figures 6 and 11 in Niikawa show the
history data as part of the image file. Stated differently, the separate files (i.e., history data and
frame data) constitute a complete image file that is submitted for storage as a single file.
Turning to claim 14, we agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 12 and 13) that
Niikawa has to have “an intent instruction” to transfer the image file from the digital camera to
the computer.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 23, 24, 28, 39, 44 and 50
is sustained. The anticipation rejection of claims 7, 8, 10 through 12, 16 through 19, 21, 22, 29,
30, 32 through 34 and 45 through 48 is likewise sustained because appellants have not presented
any patentability arguments for these claims.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 9, 20, 27, 31, 35 and 37, we agree with
the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 17 and 18) that Niikawa discloses storage in non-volatile
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007