Appeal No. 2006-2848
Application No. 09/999,971
Contrary to the Examiner=s reasoning, the user selection of one
of the built-in sequences merely indicates which one of many
sequences should be used without making any changes to the
script, let alone generating a sequence.
In view of the discussion above, we find that Anderson fails
to teach every recited limitation and therefore, cannot
anticipate claim 1. Claims 10, 13, 17 and 19 include similar
limitations related to constructing an image capture procedure or
prompting the user to do so which, as discussed above with
respect to claim 1, are absent in Anderson. Accordingly, as the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claims
1, 10, 13, 17 and 19 as well as claims 2-4, 6, 11, 12, 14-16, 18
and 20, dependent thereon, over Anderson cannot be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7-9, the Examiner
further relies on Steinberg, which teaches nothing related to
generating an image capture sequence by a user and fails to
overcome the deficiencies of Anderson discussed above with
respect to claim 1. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 7-9 over Anderson and Steinberg is not sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007