Appeal No. 2001-1230
Application No. 08/759,346
image of the entire top of the package using the distance and the
focus information provided by the low resolution cameras (id.).
Additionally, Appellants indicate that Holeva does not disclose a
narrower field of view for the high resolution camera and
instead, implies that the high resolution camera must have at
least the same field of view as that of the low resolution
cameras to insure that an image of the label is captured (brief,
pages 8 & 9 and reply brief, page 2). Referring to Flom,
Appellants argue that the reference merely discloses an iris
recognition system that captures a high resolution image of the
eye to be compared with a stored image and has nothing to do with
the claimed wide field of view and narrow field of view imagers
(brief, page 9).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the low resolution and high resolution cameras of Holeva
have wide field of view and narrow field of view respectively
(answer, page 11). The Examiner further reasons that the claims
do not recite “capturing a narrow field of view image that
contains the label” and states that:
. . . the claims only recite “capturing a narrow field of
view imager, distinct from the wide field of view imager,
which is used to capture an image of the eye, the image
captured by the narrow field of view imager having a higher
resolution and a narrower field of view than the image
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007