The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAKESH KUMAR, PADMANABHAN ANANDAN, MICHAEL TINKER,
JAMES R. BERGEN, KEVIN A. WILLIAMS and KEITH J. HANNA
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0425
Application No. 08/917,402
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through
6, 14, 15, 18 through 20, 22, 23 and 25. Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13,
16, 17, 21 and 24 are objected to as depending from a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent claim
form, and claims 9 and 12 are allowed.
The disclosed invention relates to an image processing method
and system for producing a synthetic image of a scene from a mosaic
of images, and for combining the synthetic image with a separately
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007