Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
The primary passage of Squilla relied on by the Examiner explains
"that the various icons can be used to identify anyone or subject desired by
the user," (id. ll. 39-40), and that "these individual icons may be
personalized in accordance with the wishes of the user. Thus, each of the
icons can represent a name, a relationship, or any other desired reference."
(Id. ll. 41-44.) Regardless of how the icons are personalized, however, we
agree with the Appellants that "[b]y definition, identifiers used to categorize
are not unique, except in the trivial case (clearly not contemplated by
Squilla) where each image would be its own category. However, in that
trivial case, a category is no category at all." (Reply Br. 2.)
The absence of assigning to a digital image an identifier that is unique
within a network negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 21 and of claims 3-8, 11, 18-20, 23,
and 28-30, which depend therefrom.
The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Jack cures the aforementioned deficiency of Squilla. Therefore, we reverse
the obviousness rejection of claim 17, which also depends from claim 1.
III. CLAIMS 9, 10, 12-16, 22, 24-27, AND 31-33
The Examiner finds, "Hobbs discloses a (network resource that can be
identified by a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), a URI or a URN. . .) [see
Hobbs, column 14, lines 21-35]." (Answer 7.) He further finds that "there is
clear teaching of the advantages of using a unique permanent uniform
resource locator (URL) of Hobbs as another means to identify pictures for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013