Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 9, which further illustrate the invention, follow.
1. A method, comprising:
using a digital camera to acquire a digital image; and
automatically assigning an identifier to said digital
image, said identifier uniquely identifying said digital image so
that said digital image can be accessed over a network.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifier comprises a
permanent unique uniform resource locator.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 18-21, 23, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,810,149 ("Squilla"). Claims 9,
10, 12-16, 22, 241-27, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Squilla and U.S. Patent No. 6,523,022 (Hobbs). Claim 17
stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Squilla and U.S. Patent
No. 5,119,465 (Jack). Claim 33 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious
over Squilla, Hobbs, and U.S. Patent No. 6,694,145 (Riikonen).
II. CLAIMS 1, 3-8, 11, 17-21, 23, AND 28-30
"Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween." Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144,
1 Although the Examiner's statement of the obviousness rejection includes
claim 23, (Answer 7), his explanation thereof omits the claim. (Id. 10.)
Furthermore, both the statement and explanation of the anticipation rejection
include claim 23. (Id. 3, 6.) Therefore, we treat the claim as omitted from
the obviousness rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013