Appeal 2007-0932
Application 10/058,924
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments noted earlier in the Brief and Reply
Brief as to this rejection are misplaced. Appellants repeatedly argue the
non-combinability of the central database of McDonald with the
decentralized system of Wang. The Examiner is correct in the observation
at page 21 of the Answer that the claims are properly rejectable within 35
U.S.C. § 103 which requires the consideration of the combined teachings of
the respective references rather than the physical combination of the
structures taught in them. Moreover, the artisan may well consider the
teachings in Wang to be centralized in the same way Appellants characterize
McDonald due to the label of a profile database 13 in figure 1 and the
characterization of the nature of the overall system beginning at figure 1 and
discussed at the top of column 4.
In any event, the digital camera, ultrasound digital image capture
system 22 in figure 1 of McDonald, contains demographic information in the
same manner it is permitted to be displayed within the system 20, which
includes a digital camera, of Wang. The discussion of the earlier figures of
Wang at column 8 merely identifies the ability of the personal identifier and
management system 10 of figure 1 to be within a portable personal system
depicted in figures 3A and 3B. What is significant is that both references
teach that identifying information contained within a given device relative to
a person is contained within the respective devices themselves. Rather than
arguing against the combinability of McDonald’s and Wang’s teachings,
Wang does more particularly identify that image data may be associated
with otherwise text entered data of a person for identification purposes even
though representative independent claim 1 on appeal does not require the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013