Ex parte TAYLOR et al. - Page 10

          Appeal No. 95-4722                                                          
          Application 07/946,226                                                      

          apparent viewing positions” [answer, page 18].  The examiner                
          again determines that the main reference (Hiraoka) teaches all              
          the features of the claimed invention except for creating                   
          views between the captured views.  The examiner again cites                 
          Travis as providing the teaching that interpolation can be                  
          used to provide additional images if desired.  The examiner                 
          concludes that it would have been obvious to use the Travis                 
          interpolation suggestion in the Hiraoka device [answer, page                
          Appellants argue that Hiraoka does not implicitly                           
          teach the specific recitations of claims 18-20, and the                     
          examiner has not identified any specific passage of Hiraoka                 
          which teaches the steps recited in claim 18, steps (b) and                  
          (c), claim 19, steps (b)-(e), and claim 20, steps (b) and                   
          (c)[brief, pages 21-23].  We agree with appellants’ arguments               
          with respect to each of claims 18-20.  We are unable to find                
          the teachings the examiner asserts are implicit in Hiraoka.                 
          There appears to be no reason why the specific recitations of               
          claims 18-20 must implicitly be carried out by Hiraoka.  The                
          examiner’s position represents a conclusion which is not                    
          supported by the applied prior art.  Therefore, the examiner                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007