Appeal No. 1999-2075
Application No. 08/482,944
the term “attitude”, in our view, the skilled artisan would
appreciate that sensor 29 which provides information as to tilt or
inclination of the camera about its horizontal axis is an attitude
measurement apparatus. In this same vein, the dolly sensor 30 in
Fellous which measures displacement of the camera pedestal carriage
5 along the rails 6 would thereby provide an indication of distance
or “range” to a viewed object, as also would the focusing sensor 31
described at column 5, line 67. Accordingly, since all of the
claim limitations are present in the disclosure of Fellous, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1 is
sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1 based on Pryor. According to the Examiner, while the main
use of the imaging system disclosed in Pryor is in fixture
construction, the Examiner nevertheless suggests the obviousness to
the skilled artisan of using Pryor’s system in computer modeling of
car and building designs “... to create a more accurate computer
model of any objects with respect to perspective and spatial
relationships as measured on real-time.” (Answer, page 4).
In response, Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) the Examiner’s
failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since there
is no showing that all of the claim limitations are taught or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007