Appeal 2007-0245
Application 10/238,126
teachings of Ayer to the recited claim limitations since we cannot agree with
the Examiner that the map image is a selected image which is to be
annotated. Here, we find that the pictorial image data would be the selected
images to be annotated and the cartographic image data is stored reference
image data which is not annotated. The claim language requires that the
selected [plural] images are to be annotated. Since the cartographic image
data is not to be annotated, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s correlation.
We find that the cartographic image data cannot reasonably be one of the
selected images.
We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Ayer may be
interpreted to teach that the selected pictorial image is analyzed to apply the
cartographic image annotations to the pictorial image to create an integrated
image/view (Answer 10). However, we cannot agree with the Examiner that
Ayer’s disclosure teaches plural selected images as required by the language
of independent claim 1. We make no findings relative to obviousness and
the application of multiple similar pictorial images to a single pictorial
reference since the Examiner has not applied the teachings of Ayer under
obviousness to independent claim 1. As discussed above, we find that the
Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation since the Examiner has not shown that Ayer teaches the
invention as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, and 10.
Additionally, the Examiner has not shown that Ayer teaches the recited
“means” as set forth in independent claim 12. We find that the Examiner
has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation since the Examiner has not shown that Ayer teaches the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013