Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
improvement to Christian’s system by adding more cameras (brief,
pages 7 & 8).
After reviewing the disclosure of Beamish, we find that the
Examiner has incorrectly corresponded the claimed limitation of
“the three video cameras are mounted on three mutually
perpendicular axises” to the movement of each camera about two
perpendicular axes in Beamish. Although the reference is
directed to a three-dimensional measurement and control system
using multiple cameras, the only disclosure of two perpendicular
axes relates to the axes about which each camera is capable of
moving (col. 2, lines 28-34). There is, in fact, nothing in
Beamish that directs us to the relative position of the cameras
and their mountings on three mutually perpendicular axises. In
our view, the Examiner’s conclusion that the multiple cameras of
Beamish which move about two perpendicular axes correspond to the
claimed cameras “mounted on three mutually perpendicular axises”
is not supported by the prior art disclosure. In order for us to
agree with the Examiner’s position, we would need to improperly
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007