Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Following the above guidelines, the examiner rejects claims 1 through 21 at
pages 3 to 6 of the examiner’s answer in detail over Ueno and Chen. Appellant argues
(brief at page 5) that “the prior art references, individually or in combination, do not
teach or suggest the communication of camera position parameters, for example,
azimuth, elevation, or zoom.” Appellant further argues along the same lines (brief at
page 7) that “Ueno and/or Chen does not disclose or suggest such a method for
utilizing camera parameters communicated from a source system.” The examiner
responds with diligence to the various points raised by appellant in the brief at pages 6
through 13 of the examiner’s answer. The crux of the examiner’s argument seems to
us to be exemplified by the following quotation from the examiner’s answer where the
examiner states (answer at pages 6 and 7) that “there is nothing in Ueno et al[.] that
precludes the movement of the camera in the video phone or teleconference
environment so that, for instance, a plurality of people may each be viewed as desired
when talking (see column 1, lines 6-8 and column 3, lines 64-66). The camera within
Ueno et al[.] must obviously be adjusted to the desired position in order to view the
object (i.e., person) of interest.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007