Appeal 2007-0597
Application 10/423,523
2, 4 to 6, 12, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings
of Hunter and Smith, and the Examiner rejected claims 7 to 9, 11, and 18 to
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hunter, Westfield
and Lee.
Appellant contends the video system described by Hunter does not
teach that “each of a plurality of high-resolution cameras are associated with
a set of image sensing regions of a low-resolution image sensor” as claimed
(Br. 6). Appellant also contends that the video and surveillance systems
described by Hunter, Smith, Westfield and Lee do not teach or suggest a
low-resolution camera powering on or powering off a high-resolution
camera based on detected motion in a sensed region (Br. 8 to 17).
We hereby reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 3, and
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 10, 13, 14, and 16. With respect
to the obviousness rejections, we hereby reverse the obviousness rejections
of claims 2, 4 to 9, 11, and 20, and sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 12, 15, and 17 to 19.
ISSUE (1)
Does Hunter teach that each of a plurality of high-resolution cameras
is associated with a set of image sensing regions of a low-resolution image
sensor?
FINDINGS OF FACT (1)
As indicated supra, the low-resolution camera 104 in the system
described by Appellant controls the powering on of a plurality of high-
resolution cameras 106A to 106O based on sensed motion in image sensing
regions. The-low resolution camera 104 covers a plurality of image sensing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013