Appeal No. 2000-2208
Application No. 08/874,287
suggest compensating for the unequal physical distance between
pixels in the vertical and horizontal directions. As discussed
above, Schumacher does not recognize the unequal physical
distance between pixels in vertical and horizontal directions.
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Nonami with Schumacher, as held by the Examiner, the
combination would still fall short of teaching the claimed
automatic compensation for the unequal distance between pixels.
Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s position, automatically
compensating for such unequal distances to permit the measuring
device “to determine the distance in uncalibrated orientation as
a function of said calibrated distance”, as recited in claim 35,
cannot be derived from the combination of the references.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 35 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions related to the claimed image pickup device and the
calibrating device are not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 35, nor of
claims 36, 37, 42 and 44 dependent thereon.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007