Appeal 2007-0762
Application 09/822,121
MPTZ camera positioning system in a multi-modal location
system, the Malkin and Baker references indicate an
improvement of such a system to EPTZ in the context of a
video conferencing device.
4. Appellants question why the Examiner cited Malkin or Baker
with respect to Claims 1 and 10. (Reply Br. 6). We find that the
Examiner has answered Appellants’ question rather well, as
those references teach the claimed limitation of a stationary
video camera in the context of video conferencing. (Answer 9,
middle).
5. Appellants’ arguments concerning the “back and forth
approach” (Reply Br. 8) should be related to claim limitations.
Claim limitations have been addressed by the Examiner
(Answer 10 bottom, 11).
Group II: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6. Potts, in Figure 3, does show three microphones while claims 9
and 25 call for two microphones. A careful reading of Potts
reveals his teaching of acoustic location of a speaker in a video
conference situation with as few as two microphones. (Potts
35, top). Nevertheless, the Examiner has chosen to supplement
her rejection of these claims with the teaching of Chu to show
the use of two microphones in the context of video
conferencing. (Chu, Abstract, and col. 2, l. 60).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013