Appeal No. 2006-2750
Application No. 10/104,498
memory card 8, and that Niikawa describes printing, transferring and editing of the image file.
We additionally agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 18 and 19) that “Aria
discloses, as shown in figures 2, 3, 5, 7, and 14, a system for recording a history (see figures 3, 7,
and step T49 of figure 14) of an image including a digital personal assistant (digital camera 1
and personal computer 2) as a means for e-mailing said image file to a designated recipient, via
an intent instruction, and recording said e-mailing of said image file in an event log (flag
indicating image has been emailed; see step T49 of figure 14 and column 17, lines 17-42).”
Based upon the teachings of Aria, we agree with the examiner’s position (answer, page 19) that
it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to add e-mailing to the list of uses already made
of an image file by Niikawa. Appellants’ argument (brief, pages 16 and 17) concerning a non-
volatile memory in Niikawa has been answered supra.
With respect to claim 36, we agree with examiner’s finding (answer, pages 19 and 20)
that Niikawa describes an intent instruction to print an image file, and to record the printing of
the image file in an event log (column 15, lines 43 through 52; Figures 12 through 14, 16 and
17).
Turning next to claim 38, it is noted supra that the examiner is relying on the digital
camera 1 and personal computer 2 of Aria for a teaching of a personal digital assistant.
According to the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 20, 21 and 33), the digital camera 1 in
Niikawa also functions as a personal digital assistant. In view of the number of different
functions performed by the digital cameras (e.g., e-mailing), we agree with the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007