Appeal 2007-1275
Application 09/824,248
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313, 75
USPQ2d at 1326.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, and
12-16 as being obvious over Anderson and Shioji. Reviewing the findings
of facts cited above, we do not agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims. In particular, we find that the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner failed to make a prima facie showing of obviousness with respect
to claims 9, 10, and 12-16. Appellant failed to meet the burden of
overcoming that prima facie showing.
Regarding claim 9, Appellant argues that the combination of
Anderson and Shioji would not result in the recited combination of features.
(Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.) In particular, Appellant argues that Shioji does not
disclose or suggest either "a determination processor that determines
whether the plurality of discrete images were obtained in said continual still
image photographing operation" or "an image processor that continually
reproduces said plurality of discrete images, as a common operation on said
plurality of discrete images, at a same interval as that of said continual still
image photographing operation, when it is determined, using said unique
indicator, that said plurality of discrete images were obtained in said
continual still image photographing operation," as claimed. (Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 2-3.) We do not agree.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013