Appeal 2007-2215
Application 09/918,287
1 rejected because as a scientific fact something cannot be viewed before it is
2 created. A picture is always viewed after it is taken, including the case of viewing
3 a picture in real time. The use of the form “taken” is not inconsistent with viewing
4 images in real time. Only practical simultaneity is required by the “real time”
5 recitation in the claim.
6 The Applicants also argue that neither Gluck nor Shniberg discloses or
7 suggests selecting an image service “prior to” attendance at an event. The
8 argument is misplaced because claims 8, 10, and 12 are all sufficiently broad to
9 cover the case of selecting an imaging service while in attendance at the event.
10 For the foregoing reasons, the Applicants have shown no error in the
11 Examiner’s determination that Paragraph 74 of Shniberg discloses to one with
12 ordinary skill in the art that seating location indicia is used to direct the image
13 capture device toward a spectator’s seating location.
14 The Applicants do not separately argue the merits of dependent claim 9 from
15 that of claim 8 and the merits of dependent claim 11 from that of claim 10.
16 Accordingly, claim 9 stands and falls with independent claim 8 and claim 11
17 stands and falls with independent claim 10.
18 As for claims 12-15, the Applicants rely on the same arguments and
19 contentions presented with regard to claims 8-11 and an additional argument
20 (Appeal Br. 11) that claims 12-15 further require “forming a composite image
21 including at least one image of the entertainment event or participants therein
22 combined with at least one customer image captured by an image capture
23 device or an uploaded digital image” (Emphasis added). The Applicants argue
24 that the Examiner’s reliance on the disclosure in Blank of an input port through
25 which captured video images are uploaded is insufficient because “Appellants’
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013