Appeal No. 2001-0177
Application 08/731,122
display device such that the graphical image tracks the
movement of said reflective object as it moves in said video
field.
Independent claim 1 is the system equivalent of method claim 5.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Lemelson et al. (Lemelson) 4,653,109 March 24, 1987
Brooke 5,261,030 November 9, 1993
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson and Brooke. The
examiner finds that Lemelson teaches the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 5 except for adding an image signal to a
background portion, which the examiner concludes would have been
obvious over Brooke.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 17) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 23) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 21) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 24) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that Lemelson is not concerned with real
time tracking of moving objects because Lemelson compares a scan
to the entire video field and a subsequent re-scan of the entire
video field at some later time for differences, which differences
are analyzed to determine whether something has changed from one
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007