Appeal 2007-0762
Application 09/822,121
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims 1 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on
whether the references disclose the limitations and features claimed.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that the references omit certain claimed
limitations such as panning, tilting, and zooming functions being generated
in a motionless image pickup device. Examiner contends that the references
taken together teach the invention.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Group I: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1 to 8 and
10 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
1. Appellants have invented a method and apparatus for video
conferencing in which a speaker at a conference is
automatically located by processing both the audio and the
video signals. Once located, the camera can center on the
speaker by electronically panning, tilting, and zooming the
image. (Specification 1). The claims are directed in part to a
“stationary image pickup device, remaining motionless during
operation, for generating image signals…”; an “audio pickup
device”; and “means for processing said image signals and said
audio signals to determine a direction of the audio source …the
determination depending at least at times on the image signal”.
(Claim 1).
2. The Examiner has rejected the claims over Potts, in view of
other references. Potts, in Figure 3 and on page 14, teaches a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013