Appeal No. 2001-0518
Application No. 08/745,524
We are not convinced by the examiner’s position. Whereas we agree with the
examiner that the limitations from the specification are not to be imported into the
claims (answer at page 7), the claims are to be interpreted not in a vacuum but in the
light of the specification. The specification at pages 4, 11, 12 and 13 and Figure 6 of
the disclosure clearly indicates that the varying position parameters of the camera are
utilized by appellant in the invention. Therefore, the examiner’s assertion that Ueno
does not preclude the movement of the camera so that the lens of the camera can be
focused on a person among a plurality of persons during a conference does not amount
to the same recitation which appellant discloses and claims in terms of the physical
movement of the camera itself. We agree with appellant that there is nothing in Ueno
or Chen which transmits the physical position and field of view of the camera itself from
the source to the target or destination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 21 over the combined teachings of Ueno and Chen
because all the claims recite the same or similar limitation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007