Appeal No. 1999-2075
Application No. 08/482,944
suggested by Pryor. We are in agreement with Appellants that, at
most, Pryor provides a teaching of running CAD software on a
computer which is part of a combination including camera imaging
apparatus. Further, although Pryor suggests the use of positional
reference information from the CAD software, we find no teaching or
suggestion of “... combining imagery from said electronic camera
with imagery from said CAD software” as specifically recited in
appealed claim 1.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
Pryor reference, it is our opinion that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
independent claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 1 based on Pryor is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2-4 based on the combination of Fellous and
Saunders, we do not sustain this rejection as well. In analyzing
the limitations set forth in appealed claims 2-4, the Examiner has
added Saunders to Fellous to address the claimed features directed
to the determination of a reference point as related to the
intersection of an image axis, which defines a system pointing
direction, and the image plane of a camera.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007