Appeal No. 2001-1230
Application No. 08/759,346
with Appellants’ arguments related to the difference between
locating an object in a scene and determining the distance of an
object, we do not need to reach this issue. We merely note that
the focus sensing processor 106 of Holeva indeed locates the top
of the package by determining the distance between the low
resolution camera and the top of the package.
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Holeva with Flom, as held by the Examiner, the
combination would still fall short of teaching 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 based on the location information provided by the wide
field of view camera. We note that, similar to claims 1 and 7,
independent claims 11 and 15 recite using wide field of view and
narrow field of view imagers while claims 14 and 16 require a
coarse resolution imager to capture an image of the scene and
locate the object and a fine resolution imager to capture an
image of the object responsive to location information from the
coarse resolution imager. Therefore, as the Examiner has failed
to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 7-9 and 11-16 over
Holeva and Flom.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007