Appeal No. 2006-2750
Application No. 10/104,498
findings that the digital cameras disclosed by the applied references do indeed function as
personal digital assistants.
Turning lastly to claim 43, we find that the edit/delete functions performed by Niikawa
are file management applications that are reviewed with display properties functions as broadly
set forth in this claim. For example, column 11 and Table 1 in Niikawa describe a file
management unit 51 for managing each of the image files.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 9, 20, 27, 31, 35 through 38 and 43 is
sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 39 through 42 and 49 is sustained because
appellant have not presented any patentability arguments for these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, 10 through 14, 16
through 19, 21 through 24, 28 through 30, 32 through 34, 44 through 48 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5, 9, 20, 27, 31, 35
through 43 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007