Appeal No. 2006-1020
Application No. 09/899,066
The examiner relies on Chino for the teaching that
zoom tracking of a camera changes based on insertion or
removal of filters due to distinct refractive index of the
filter as compared to air (Col. 4 lines 45-48). Chino
further teaches that such a zoom error may be corrected by
switching between prestored zoom tracking curves (Col. 4
lines 50-52; 62-65) for both filter removed and filter
inserted conditions (curves 40 and 41 respectively as
depicted in Fig. 4). The examiner argues that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have incorporated the CCD
camera of Beis with the zoom lens of Chino for the purpose
of providing detailed images of far away objects, for
example, to increase the surveillance function thereof
(Answer at page 23).
We have reviewed the evidence before us and we
conclude therefrom that the examiner has presented a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter that has not been successfully
rebutted by appellant. Accordingly, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 17 and 26-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007