Appeal No. 2001-0516
Application No. 08/834,073
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the limitations of claims 1, 13, and
19 are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. In particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 4
and 5) that Kuboyama, relied on by the Examiner as teaching a
target mask selection feature, does not provide for the selection
of a mask dependent on or corresponding to a selected field of
view of a camera as recited in each of the appealed independent
claims 1, 13, and 19.
After careful review of the admitted prior art and the
Kuboyama reference, in light of the arguments of record, we are
in general agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the
Brief. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Kuboyama
coincides with that of Appellant, i.e., we find no disclosure of
mask selection in dependence upon a field of view of a camera.
In particular, as pointed out by Appellant, the portion of
Kuboyama referenced by the Examiner (col. 3, lines 37-55) merely
describes the detection of the outline of thinned-out image data
based on a selection of the original shape data adapted to the
object as a target. We can find no support on the record before
us for the Examiner’s conclusion that Kuboyama discloses the
field of view dependent mask selection feature as claimed. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007