Appeal No. 2000-0425
Application No. 08/917,402
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ebeling (‘978) in view of Collender, Ebeling
(‘105), Arrazola and Gold.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ebeling (‘978) in view of Collender, Ebeling
(‘105), Arrazola and Gehrmann.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ebeling (‘978) in view of Collender, Ebeling
(‘105), Arrazola and Mailhot.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 19 and 21) and
the answer (paper number 20) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
through 6, 14, 15, 18 through 20, 22, 23 and 25.
According to the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 3 and 4),
Ebeling (‘978) discloses a plurality of first images of a scene in
a mosaic (Figure 4), first and second non-coincidental viewpoints
of at least one of the first images, and “a synthesized image of
said scene from said mosaic (col. 6, lines 68-73).”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007