Appeal 2007-0017
Application 10/074,179
Appellant argues that Ina does not disclose "checking, in-camera, the
photo quality of the captured image to determine if the photo quality is
acceptable." It is argued that Ina is directed to a camera which digitally
combines two digital images and displays the resultant image to the user for
manual verification of motion, and not to a camera for "checking,
in-camera" the photo quality of a captured image (Br. 9). That is, the user,
and not a processor in the camera, makes the actual determination of
whether the photo quality is acceptable (Br. 10). Appellant addresses each
of the sections of Ina cited by the Examiner and finds that none of the
sections could reasonably be interpreted to indicate that the processor 92/100
determines the quality of the captured image (Br. 10-12).
The Examiner responds that "the images stored in the
memory 98a/98b are combined by the processor 92 to check, in camera,
the photo quality of the captured image to determined [sic] if the photo
quality is acceptable (i.e., see col. 8, lines 5-20) as recited in present
claimed invention" (Answer 10-11).
Appellant replies that Ina merely discloses that two images are
combined to enable a user to determine whether there was a relative
movement between the time the two images were captured, and this
checking is not done "in-camera" (Reply Br. 4). Appellant argues that the
Examiner has apparently interpreted "in-camera" to include processes that
occur in the camera as well as processes performed by the user, and this
interpretation is improper because "in-camera" clearly denotes that checking
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013