Appeal 2007-2215
Application 09/918,287
1 invention is directed to uploading of still images from a digital or hybrid camera”
2 (Appeal Br. 11, ll. 22-23).
3 For several reasons, the Applicants’ additional argument with respect to
4 claims 12-15 is misplaced and insufficient. First, the corresponding claim
5 language in claims 12-15 at issue here is “digital image” and that term is broad
6 enough to encompass both digital video images and digital still images. The
7 limitation argued by the Applicants, uploading of still images, is not required by
8 the claims. Secondly, the Examiner explained (Answer 30, ll. 8-11) that Blank
9 discloses capturing video images via a frame grabber interface or capture board
10 912 and further discloses that the frame grabber 912 is optionally connected to
11 video sources such as a video camera 914 or a “still video” camera 920.
12 According to the Examiner, uploading images from a still video camera is the
13 same as uploading still images. The Applicants have not specifically addressed the
14 rationale as stated by the Examiner. Thus, no error has been shown in that regard.
15 Finally, it is noted that the addition of a limitation that begins with the disjunctive
16 “or” adds no real further limitation to a claim. Claim 10 already recites the
17 creation of a composite image which includes at least one image of the
18 entertainment event and/or one image of the participants at the event, combined
19 with a customer image captured by the image capturing device. The addition in
20 claim 12 of an alternative, i.e., something uploaded, does not provide a further
21 limitation as compared to the corresponding element in claim 10. The second
22 image source for forming a composite image as specified in claim 12 is broader
23 than that as required by claim 10.
24
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013