Appeal No. 2001-1230
Application No. 08/759,346
package. In fact, as pointed out by Appellants (brief, pages 8
and 9), the field of view of the high resolution camera must be
at least the same as the low resolution camera in order to
capture the image of entire top of the package to cover all the
portions that may contain a label.
Flom, on the other hand, relates to identifying an eye from
the visible features of the iris by obtaining an image of the
iris and comparing the image with the stored image information
(Fig. 2 and col. 4, line 59 through col. 5, line 2). Although
Flom mentions using one or more cameras or laser-based techniques
for obtaining an image of the iris (Fig. 10 and col. 11, lines
15-22), no further reference is made to the field of view or
relative resolution of the camera.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the combination of
Holeva and Flom fails to teach or suggest a wide field of view
camera to capture an image of the scene and locate the object and
a narrow field of view camera to capture an image of the object.
As discussed above, none of the references discloses that the
image captured by the narrow field of view camera has both a
higher resolution and a narrower field of view than the image
captured by the wide field of view camera, as required by
independent claims 1 and 7. Although we might have disagreed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007