Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For all the reasons expressed by the examiner in the
answer, and for the additional reasons presented here, we will
sustain the prior art rejection of claims 1, 7 and 18 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103. Inasmuch as we are in agreement with the well-reasoned
positions and legal-factual analysis of the teachings of the
references done by the examiner, we will not for the sake of
brevity repeat that which has clearly been set forth in the
answer. To round-out the examiner’s detailed analysis of the
claimed invention and appellant’s arguments, we add the
following.
Beginning in the background invention discussion of Gove
at column 1, lines 49 through 58, camera motion was a known
factor in determining scene changes in a sequence of images.
Indeed, this portion of Gove introduces the concept that at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007