Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 6
Application No. 09/089,153
the references. Specifically, appellant states (id.): “[i]n the
video monitoring system in the Schofield et al. reference, there
is no suggestion or teaching as to the desirability of
incorporating an object distance detection system in order to
enhance the effectiveness of the system as a whole.”
Schofield discloses (col. 7, lines 14-17) that “[e]ach image
capture device could be a combination of different types of
devices, such as one sensitive to visible radiation combined with
one sensitive to infrared radiation.” The reference further
suggests (col. 11, lines 21-28):
In order to determine the distance of objects behind
vehicle 10, a separate distance-measuring system may be
used. Such separate system may include radar,
ultrasonic sensing, infrared detection, and other known
distance-measuring systems. Alternatively,
stereoscopic distance-sensing capabilities of side
image capture devices 14 may be utilized to determine
the separation distance from trailing objects utilizing
known techniques.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that
motivation to combine the references is lacking. We find that
Schofield et al. suggests providing the image capture devices
taught in that reference with a combination of video and distance
detection systems, such as those further disclosed by Gauthier.
Appellant also argues (brief, page 6) that in Schofield,
“[t]here is no mention of the placement of the image capture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007