Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble and Nishi.
3 Based on the above Findings of Fact, we conclude that
4 • The art applied shows or suggests acquiring a digital picture triggered by the
5 step of obtaining the weight of a produce item (FF 08)(All claims; Br. 9-14;
6 Reply Br. 2-4)
7 • The art applied shows or suggests waiting for a stable wait period of the
8 produce item on the weight scale (FF 13)(Claims 7 and 21).
9 As to the Appellant’s contention that the trigger in Humble is a sensor, not a
10 scale, that the Examiner has admitted the scale is not the trigger, and that the
11 Examiner has misconstrued the law of open ended transitions such as “comprising”
12 to read the triggering limitation out of the claim, we note that the Examiner
13 apparently was simply acknowledging that the scale might be an intermediate
14 trigger and not the initial trigger, but that even an intermediate trigger is still a
15 trigger (FF 06).
16 As to Appellant’s contention that that Humble teaches that the camera may be
17 configured so that it does not require an image of the weight, or even that the
18 weighing be done, we note that these are alternative embodiments, in addition to
19 the embodiment in which the weight is recorded on the image, and therefore do not
20 negate Humble’s teachings of that embodiment.
21 The Appellant has argued the remainder of the claims based on these same
22 issues, and so these claims are treated in a similar manner. The Appellant has not
23 shown reversible error on the part of the Examiner. Accordingly we sustain the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013