Ex Parte Sato

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

10321768 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TSUNEO SATO
____________

Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 30, 2010
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13-17, and 19-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). A hearing was held April 13, 2010.
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a digital camera that synthesizes a
literal image with a photographed image (Spec. 1:5-6).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A digital still camera for outputting a synthesized image in
which an object image of an object taken by photography
operation is combined with a literal image including a message,
said digital still camera comprising:

a clock section for generating photographing time information
representing photographing time of photography of said object;

an elapsed time calculating section for calculating an elapsed
time from a reference time which is previously set, to said
photographing time;

a memory for storing plural message data and an elapsed time
region data which corresponds to each of said plural message
data;

a data reader for reading out said plural message data, said
reader comparing said elapsed time with an elapsed time region
which said elapsed time region data represents, and outputting
as one or more messages at least one of said plural message
data corresponding to said elapsed time region data whose
condition said elapsed time satisfies; and

an image synthesizing section for synthesizing said object
image with said one or more messages,

wherein said plural message data represent a same theme, and
each of said plural message data describes a specific event with
respect to said object at a time when said object image is taken
by said photography operation, and

Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768

3
wherein said plural message data represent progressive steps of
the same theme and the reference time is predetermined for the
same theme.

REFERENCES
Yoshida US 5,515,101 May 7, 1996
Parulski US 5,633,678 May 27, 1997
Kikuzawa JP 2001-008143 Jan. 12, 2001

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9, 13-17, and 19-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Yoshida.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Yoshida and Kikuzawa.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Yoshida and Parulski.
Appellant contends Yoshida does not disclose outputting “a message
based on an elapsed time calculated using a photographing time and a
reference time” (App. Br. 10).1 Appellant relies on contentions directed to
the § 102(b) rejection to contest the § 103(a) rejections (App. Br. 11).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err under § 102(b) in finding Yoshida explicitly or
inherently teaches calculating an elapsed time using attribute data (reference
time)?

1 The resubmitted Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2008, is referenced throughout
this opinion.
Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Yoshida teaches a microcomputer 1 can obtain a current time
information from a clock circuit 2 or from an auto-calendar circuit. The
current time can include the year, month, day, hour, minute, or second.
(Col. 2, ll. 53-55)
2. Yoshida also teaches storing titles in the microcomputer. The
titles are classified into groups or according to a rational order such as time,
occasion, etc. (Col. 6, ll. 50-54; Tables 1-9) Attributes of titles can be other
than month or season and need not be limited to just time (col. 4, ll. 10-25).
3. Time information can be a preset time after (or before) the
current time (col. 4, ll. 16-17).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 13-17, and 19-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with respect to independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 24
(App. Br. 9). Appellant argues claim 1, and relies on “similar reasons” for
contending the other independent claims are patentable (App. Br. 10). This
rejection is addressed with respect to claim 1.
Appellant asserts claim 1 distinguishes over Yoshida by reciting the
elapsed time is calculated from the reference time to the photographing time;
whereas Yoshida merely compares a photographing time to attribute data
without calculating an elapsed time. That is, Yoshida only teaches a current
(photographing time) and a reference time, but not an elapsed time. (App.
Br. 10; Reply Br. 6)
The Examiner finds Yoshida does teach elapsed time (Ans. 2, 8-9).
Appellant’s claims recite determining the elapsed time from a reference time
Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768

5
that is previously set, to a photographing (current) time. Yoshida teaches
using time information from a clock, which is the current time or a preset
time before or after the current time (FF 3; col. 4, ll. 15-17). Thus, a
reference time in Yoshida can be preset before or after the current
(photographing) time, the difference between the two being the elapsed time.
Further, despite Appellant’s assertions as to an intended invention, the
Examiner correctly explains “claims 1 and 24 do not require a user to define
and enter a reference dat[e]/time” (Ans. 9-10).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding Appellant’s assertions
that Yoshida does not teach plural message data representing progressive
steps of the same theme (FF 2; Ans. 10).
Thus, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 24. Because
claims 2, 9, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 depend therefrom, and were not
separately argued, they are also anticipated by Yoshida.
Appellants assert claims 4, 8, 28, and 29, rejected under § 103(a), are
allowable by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 24 with no
further argument (App. Br. 11). Thus, these claims are obvious over
Yoshida in view of Kikuzawa and/or Parulski.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13-17, and 19-
29 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-008530
Application 10/321,768

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037