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
18].
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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007