Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
Claims 7, 8
Although Schmoll shows a video camera 18 (Fig. 1) behind the striking location
of the ball and an overhead camera 22, the reference makes clear (col. 3, ll. 61-64) that
additional cameras may be useful. Appellants argue that nothing in the applied
references, however, suggests placement of a camera in front of the striking location
and in line with a golfer’s target during a swing at the golf ball in the striking location, as
required by instant claim 7.
Schmoll further teaches, however, that the camera for recording an image of the
person at least at the moment of impact of the club with the golf ball is positioned to
record an image “from one of the front and rear” of the person swinging the golf club.
Although Schmoll’s embodiment of Figure 1 describes camera 18 as placed to the rear
of the golfer, the lens is aligned “in the intended direction of ball flight.” Col. 3, ll. 41-41.
The artisan would have recognized, in consideration of the reference as a whole, that a
camera such as camera 18 could also be placed in the “front” of the person swinging
the golf club and acquire the relevant data -- e.g., the dimensions shown in Schmoll’s
Figure 2.
We thus find suggestion in Schmoll for placement of video capture means that
meets the broad terms of instant claim 7. We also note that the claim does not exclude
any additional structures that the artisan might deem necessary for protecting a camera
placed in front of a golfer and “in line with a golfer’s target during a swing at the golf
ball,” as recited by the claim.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007