Appeal No. 2001-0177
Application 08/731,122
scan to the re-scan (Br6-7). The examiner contends that
appellants' "claims do not recite a real time tracking of moving
objects" (EA6), but "simply recite 'adding graphical image
signals to background portion in real time'" (EA6-7). Appellants
respond that the graphical image, which is added in real time,
tracks the movement of the reflective object, which requires real
time tracking of a moving object (RBr2-3).
We agree with appellants that "an image signal to be added
to said background portion in real time for displaying a
graphical image at the specified relative position on a display
device such that the graphical image tracks the movement of said
reflective object as it moves in said video field" requires real
time tracking. However, assuming Lemelson performs tracking at
the time of the re-scan, it seems that this could be considered
to be in real time, i.e., the re-scan it is at the present time
(depending on the speed of the processing). Moreover, as the
examiner notes (EA7), it appears that the comparison can be done
with stored data instead of a previous scan (col. 9,
lines 30-34), which could also be considered in real time (again
depending on the speed of the processing). On the other hand,
Lemelson does not disclose any need for real time processing. To
be cautious, we will not decide the appeal on this basis.
Appellants argue that Lemelson does not contain any teaching
with respect to matching of pixel patterns or, indeed, doing any
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007