Appeal 2007-0016
Application 10/700,496
Appellants that convinces us of any error in the Examiner’s finding that,
with respect to claim 3, Wu discloses [0004] that microphone recorded
sound is associated with a digital camera captured image. Similarly, with
respect to dependent claim 4, we agree with the Examiner that Wu discloses
[ 0013 and 0018-0023] that the microphone sound recording operation is
performed just after the image capturing operation. We further agree with
the Examiner that, as illustrated in Wu’s Figure 1, Wu discloses that the
microphone is positioned on the bottom face near the rear face location of
the ocular lens (appealed claim 5) and between a pair of optical systems of
the binoculars (appealed claim 6).
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 2 in which the Hirunuma reference is added to Wu to address the
claimed tripod attaching section feature. We sustain this rejection as well.
Since we agree with the Examiner, as previously discussed, that the Wu
reference can be reasonably interpreted as providing a microphone on the
bottom face of the binoculars, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding of
obviousness to the skilled artisan of attaching a tripod to the bottom face of
the binoculars to reduce hand vibrations as taught by Hirunuma.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on the combination of Wu and Nagumo, of dependent claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013