Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
(zoom-in)” motions (Answer, page 4), we agree with the
appellants (Brief, pages 16 and 17) that:
One of ordinary skill in the art, after reading
and understanding Kummerfeldt, would not learn from
this reference that rotation motion or zoom motion
should be sensed in addition to linear motion, and
that rotation vector data or zoom vector data should
be generated. Nor would one learn from Kummerfeldt
how rotation (or zoom) motion should be sensed and
how rotation (or zoom) vector data should be
generated. Nor would one of ordinary skill learn
from the teachings of Kummerfeldt that such rotation
(or zoom) vector data should be combined with the
motion vector data that is generated from linear
motion sensing.
One of ordinary skill in the art simply would
learn from Kummerfeldt that motion from block to
block or from complex to complex is made up of
rotation, translation, expansion and contraction
(column 3, lines 12-14). It is urged that this
observation by Kummerfeldt is not sufficient to
enable one to generate separate translation and
rotation (or zoom) vectors and then combine those
separate vectors, as required by the claims . . . .
[Emphasis in original.]
Inasmuch as Kummerfeldt neither teaches nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a combination of
linear motion vector data with other vector data, we agree
with appellants (Brief, page 27) that the examiner “has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007