Appeal No. 2001-1230
Application No. 08/759,346
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21, mailed April
11, 2000) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 19, filed December 2, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 23, filed June 14, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 7-9 and 11-16,
the Examiner characterizes the low-resolution and the high-
resolution cameras in Figure 1 of Holeva as the wide field of
view imager and the narrow field of view imager respectively
(answer, page 3). The Examiner further relies on Flom for
disclosing a recognition system for identification by obtaining
an image of the iris of the eye of a human. By pointing to the
high resolution camera of Holeva that determines the profile of
the package surface, the Examiner concludes that combining the
teachings of Holeva and Flom would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art (id.).
Appellants argue that the low resolution cameras obtain
images of the top of the package for determining the distance
between the cameras and the top of the package instead of
locating an object in the scene (brief, page 8). Appellants
further point out that the high resolution camera obtains an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007