Appeal No. 1999-2075
Application No. 08/482,944
In response, Appellants contend (Brief, page 7) that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since,
at most, the Examiner’s analysis merely shows that some of
Appellants’ claimed elements appear in Fellous while others may
appear in Saunders. After careful review of the Fellous and
Saunders references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Brief.
In our view, the Examiner has combined the projection plane and
range finder teachings of Saunders with the computer modeling
system of Fellous in some vague manner without specifically
describing how the teachings would be combined. This does not
persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art having the
references before her or him, and using her or his own knowledge of
the art, would have been put in possession of the claimed subject
matter.
We note that at page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner suggests
that the skilled artisan would have been motivated and found it
obvious to use a projection plane and range finding device such as
taught by Saunders when combining a real and synthetic image “...
because it would allow the perspective of background scenery to be
maintained.” There is no indication from the Examiner, however, as
to where in the computer modeling system of Fellous such a device
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007