Appeal No. 1996-3638
Application 08/169,681
method for high resolution digital images in a multiple use environment. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable
over Melnychuck in view of Adelson.
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Melnychuck and Adelson as applied to claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 and further in view of Katsuta. On
pages 12 and 13 of the brief, Appellants argue that claim 4 is similar to claim 1 in requiring in step (e)
that the reconstructed images be combined into a depth image but differs in stating that the original
images are taken from different viewpoints rather than perspectives. Appellants argue that taking the
original images from different viewpoints is equivalent to taking the original image from a different
perspective. Appellants point out that this is true because Appellants' claim 4 still requires that one is
able to generate a depth image from the reconstructed images and depth images necessarily contain
multiple perspective views. Appellants argue that all the arguments advanced for claims 1 through 3, 6
and 7 are applicable also to claim 4. Appellants also argue that claims 8 and 9 are analogous to claims
1 through 3, 6 and 7 in that claims 8 and 9 require a computer to decompose original images taken
from multiple viewpoints and a second computer to produce depth images from the reconstructed
original image. Appellants again argue that images from multiple viewpoints are necessary images from
multiple perspectives. Thus, all the arguments advanced in connection with claims 1 through 3, 6 and
7 are applicable also to claims 8 and 9.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007