Appeal No. 1999-0296 Page 15
Application No. 08/483,552
parameters, it does not link the adjustment of disparity with
the adjustment of the focal length of zoom lenses.
He fails to allege, let alone show, moreover, that
Anderson cures the deficiency of Robinson. Because the latter
reference does not link the adjustment of disparity with the
adjustment of the focal length of zoom lenses, we are not
persuaded that the teachings from the applied prior art would
have suggested the limitations of "means for adjusting
disparity while adjusting focal length of the zoom lenses to
avoid loss of stereo effect" or "adjusting disparity while
adjusting focal length of the zoom lenses to avoid loss of
stereo effect.” Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
4 and 13 as being obvious over Robinson in view of Anderson.
We proceed to claim 5.
IV. Claim 5
The examiner assets, “[c]laim 5, is analyzed and
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8 above.” The
appellants argue, “claim 5 is a method which requires
‘maintaining the optical axes of a left camera and of a right
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007