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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007