Appeal No. 2000-2208
Application No. 08/874,287
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants state their intention
that claims 35-37, 42 and 44 be grouped together so that they
stand and fall together (brief, page 5). Accordingly, we will
consider the claims as one group and will limit our consideration
to independent claim 35 as the representative claim of the group.
The Examiner relies on Nonami for teaching the claimed
elements except for the input image being a projected
photographic image and the calibration system. The Examiner,
however, takes official notice that image sensors may be used in
various environments and therefore, the sensors of Nonami are
capable of receiving photographic images (answer, page 4). The
Examiner further relies on Schumacher for disclosing a system for
measuring the distance between two cursor overlays which “is
calibrated by using a known distance” and presumes that the known
distance is inputted by the user (id.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner, in taking the official
notice, improperly associates the claimed image pickup device
that receives photographic images with the photo sensors of
Nonami (brief, page 7). Appellants further assert that
Schumacher’s calibration is based on calculating a distance by
determining the number of pixels in the display area by counting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007