Appeal No. 2001-0177
Application 08/731,122
processing whatsoever at the pixel level (Br8). It is argued
that to the extent Lemelson discusses, in what is, at best,
general terms, elements of the present invention, such discussion
is not coupled with any teaching or suggestion as to how such
elements may be implemented, and does not teach the specifics of
the invention of claims 1 and 5 (Br8-9).
The examiner states that "implementation of computing of the
size and shape of an object is commonly well known in the art"
(EA7) as evidenced by appellants' specification which discloses
"[d]igital signal processor 37 reads and processes the RGB
signals in buffer 35 to the detect the position in a field of
video of an object having a user specified size, shape and color"
(specification, p. 4, lines 15-17). The examiner further states
that "the issue is not whether the Lemelson reference is valid
and can be implemented but whether Appellant's claimed invention
is patentable" (EA8).
The examiner errs in interpreting the statement in
appellants' specification that the digital signal processor 37
detects the position of an object as somehow an admission that
computing the size, shape, and position of an object in the
claimed manner was well known, when, in fact, the statement
describes the operation of appellants' invention described in the
program at pages 5-7 of the specification. The examiner also
errs in dismissing appellants' argument that Lemelson does not
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007