Appeal 2007-0597
Application 10/423,523
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 12, 15, and 17, the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims
apart from the arguments presented for claims 10 and 14 (Br. 13 and 14).
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19, the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims
apart from the arguments presented for claim 14 (Br. 17).
CONCLUSIONS
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 1
and 3 because Hunter does not describe a low-resolution camera with “a
plurality of image sensing regions.” Anticipation has been established by
the Examiner for claims 10, 13, 14, and 16 because Hunter describes a low-
resolution camera “powering on” as well as “powering off” a high-resolution
camera.
The obviousness of the claimed subject matter has not been
established by the Examiner for claims 2, 4 to 9, 11, and 20 because the
teachings of the secondary references to Smith, Westfield, and Lee fail to
cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Hunter. On the other hand,
obviousness of the claimed subject matter set forth in claims 12, 15, and 17
to 19 has been established by the Examiner.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, and 16 is affirmed
as to claims 10, 13, 14, and 16, and is reversed as to claims 1 and 3.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013