Appeal No. 2000-0425
Application No. 08/917,402
We agree with the examiner that Ebeling (‘978) discloses a
mosaic of images (Figure 4). Even if we assume for the sake of
argument that the examiner’s finding is correct that Ebeling (‘978)
discloses first and second non-coincidental viewpoints of at least
one of the first images, we do not, however, agree with the
examiner’s finding that Ebeling (‘978) produces “a synthesized
image of said scene from said mosaic.” Ebeling (‘978) clearly
discloses that only one image in the mosaic is scanned at a time
(column 6, lines 53 through 69; column 8, lines 11 through 16). If
only one image is scanned at a time, then Ebeling (‘978) is
incapable of producing “a synthesized image of said scene from said
mosaic” from the first and second non-coincidental viewpoints of
the at least one first image (claim 1). The examiner’s finding
(answer, page 3) that Ebeling (‘978) produces “an indicium of
viewpoint . . . while generating said second image” may be correct,
but Ebeling (‘978) is completely silent as to producing “a
synthetic image derived from said mosaic that represents a view of
the scene [of the first image] corresponding to the indicium of
viewpoint” produced for the second image” (claim 19).
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that “Ebeling
[’978] does not disclose said translation parameters, nor does said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007