Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not
necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed
product."). See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708-09, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
From our review of the instant claims and the prior art rejection,
applied by the Examiner, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim
1 and independent claim 16 grouped therewith by Appellants. First, we note
that the language of independent claim 1 recites “receiving one or more
annotations” and “categorizing the one or more annotations.” Interpreting
independent claim 1 to include a single annotation, and placing that single
annotation on the digital image and on a timeline, we find the teaching of
Meron to meet the express limitations of independent claim 1. We find that
the use of a single category of annotation gives an a priori categorizing of
the annotation which would meet the language of independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the Examiner has identified that Appellants include time as one
of the explicit categories in Appellants’ Specification at page 9, line 29
which we find to be similar to the teachings of Meron (Answer 7-8).
Additionally, we find that each individual unit of time may be deemed
to be a separate category and the proper placement on the image and the
appropriate time and relative location on the image and timeline is a
categorizing step. Finally, we note that Meron also teaches that other
information may be displayed and information may be displayed in other
sets or windows or not displayed in windows in paragraph [0031]. Meron
additionally states in paragraph [0034] that an annotation may automatically
be created when such conditions (low motility or for blood in the GI tract)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013