Appeal No. 2000-0425
Application No. 08/917,402
synthesized image comprise said image information from said first
and second viewpoints.”
We agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that
“Collender positions two TV cameras to view a scene, each from a
different viewpoint (col. 3, lines 50-53 and 60),” and synthesizes
N views in-between the two views. In spite of such teachings,
Collender is completely silent as to translation parameters for the
views of a scene. Thus, we agree with the appellants’ argument
(brief, page 15) that neither of these references is concerned with
“translation parameters for each of said first images, where said
translation parameters define an alignment relationship for each of
the first images with respect to common image information contained
in each of the first images” as set forth in all of the claims on
appeal.
Based upon the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Ebeling
(‘978) and Collender, and the fact that the other applied
references do not cure these shortcomings, we will reverse all of
the obviousness rejections of record.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007