Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
table, tripod, or other holding mechanism to secure the camera [id.].
After carefully reviewing all the evidence before us, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17 for essentially the same
reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We note that the literal
term “continuous” is disclosed in the Ogawa reference (i.e., “continuous
shooting mode”) [col. 5, lines 47 and 54]. We acknowledge that Ogawa
does not explicitly indicate whether the self-timer feature operates in
conjunction with the continuous shooting mode [see e.g., col. 5, line 54].
Nevertheless, we find the combination of both features is suggested by the
reference and would have been an obvious modification to an artisan
desiring to shoot a continuous series of frames using a self-timer. We
further agree with the examiner that Ogawa’s self-timer shooting mode
implicitly suggests to an artisan the need for a table, tripod, or other holding
mechanism to secure the camera. As to the claimed artificial intelligence
component that determines an optimal screen orientation for the display
based at least upon a user’s position, we find the plain language of the claim
broadly but reasonably reads on Manchester’s self-orienting display system
that performs the recited function, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we
agree with the examiner that the subject matter of claim 17 is obvious over
Ogawa in view of Manchester.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007