Appeal 2007-0762
Application 09/822,121
Appellants contend that the “Examiner has failed to indicate any
reference that teaches or suggests pan, tilt, zoom functions being generated
in a motionless image pickup device.” (Br. 12). (See Findings of Fact 2, 3,
and 4 above). We disagree with this contention, based on the cited Findings.
Appellants contend that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in
combining the EPTZ of Baker and Malkin with the multi-modal integration.
Reviewing Finding of Fact #3 above, we find the genesis of the combination
in the references themselves, especially in view of the Leapfrog decision
concerning substituting more modern technologies in a base reference.
Appellants have substituted the newer electronic EPTZ for the older
mechanical MPTZ.
With respect to claims 9 and 25, while the Potts/Malkin references
alone may have sufficed in this rejection (see the Bush and Boyer cites
above, and Finding of Fact #6), it is no error to provide an extra teaching of
two microphones, as demonstrated in the cited Chu reference.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 to 25 as recited above. The
rejection of those claims is affirmed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Potts in view of Baker or Malkin is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013