Appeal No. 2002-0721
Application No. 08/930,100
Lamprecht shows in the Figure that cameras 5, 6 correspond
to eyes A1, A2. In column 4, lines 59 through 68, Lamprecht
teaches that cameras 5, 6 are changed in the angle of vision of
the leading eye A1 or A2. Thus, Lamprecht teaches a camera
arranged in correspondence with an eye, said camera having an
optical parameter in common with an eye. Lamprecht fails to
teach at least one camera arranged in correspondence with said
pair of eyes, said at least one camera having an optical
parameter in common with said pair of eyes. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 44 through 46 as
being anticipated by Lamprecht under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We now turn to the Examiner's rejection of claims 21 through
24 and 38 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lamprecht in view of Taboada and Robinson. We note that
claims 21 through 24 and 38 through 43 are dependent upon claim
13 and thereby include all limitations of claim 13. We further
note that the Examiner relies on Lamprecht for the above
discussed limitations of claim 13 in this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007