Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
that for the determination of obviousness, the court must
answer whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out
to solve the problem and who had before him in his workshop
the prior art, would have been reasonably expected to use the
solution that is claimed by Appellants.
At the outset, it is noted that neither the Appellants
nor the Examiner have addressed any of the limitations in
independent claims 35, 41, 44, 48, 58, 59, 69, 70 or 79.
Accordingly, we will look to the rational provided in the
rejection of other claims to determine if the art is properly
combinable. On page 11 of the answer, the Examiner asserts
that Terzopoulos on page 577, paragraph 2 teaches the
limitations concerning “obtaining samples of the subject
speaking; investigating the sample to identify the units
therein.” Further on page 12 of the answer, the Examiner
relies upon Terzopoulos to teach the limitations “wherein said
images are of a user’s head and face,” and “changing an amount
of lighting effect.”
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007