Appeal No. 2000-0768
Application No. 08/607,458
OPINION
Responsive to the section 103 rejection of claims 1-5 set forth on pages 3 through 8
of the Final Rejection, appellant argues, inter alia, that the proposed combination fails to
teach the "position coordinate selecting unit" set forth in claim 1. (Brief at 5-6.) In view of
the statement of the rejection, the examiner considers the "position coordinate selecting
unit" to be taught by Hooper -- Hooper is deemed to disclose all of the claim 1 "means for
interactively mapping multimedia data to the feature points in electronic images" except for
a "position coordinate analyzing means" [sic; unit]" and a "presentation position storing
means" [sic; unit]. (Final Rejection at 4.)
In response to appellant's argument (Answer at 3-4), the examiner points to page
36 and Figure 13(b) of Hooper as indicative of a "position coordinate selecting unit" as
claimed. Appellant in turn (Reply Brief at 1-2) argues that the Hooper disclosure does not
reveal the claimed details of the "position coordinate selecting unit."
Instant claim 1 requires that the "position coordinate selecting unit" performs the
function of "selecting the position coordinates of one of said candidates as the
coordinates of said presentation position of the specific multimedia data." The
"candidates of a presentation position of the multimedia data" are a product of the
"position coordinate analyzing unit," which extracts "figure feature points of the electronic
image to obtain position coordinates of the figure feature points" to be used as the
“candidates.”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007