Appeal No. 1999-0034
Application No. 08/568,402
As we noted on page 3 of the opinion, that use of the visual sensors in target
detector 12 (Fig. 1) as described by McGary does not teach monitoring an area by
means of a pilot camera, thereby producing an image of the area, is not an issue in
dispute.
As we pointed out on page 4 of the opinion, McGary teaches that target
movement may be determined using video camera 16 signals alone. Col. 3, ll. 47-49.
As explained in more detail at column 3, lines 4 through 17 of the reference, and
depicted in Figure 2c, field of view and focus of camera 16 may provide an image of an
area of interest that includes target box B. System controller 14 (Figure 1) may use
signals directly from the video camera to place the target box in its field of view.
Appellant apparently reads the reference as requiring target acquisition in the
first instance by use of target detector 12 (Fig. 1), or by requiring potential target data
acquisition by sensors 30 and 32 (Fig. 3), before the image of the area under
surveillance is processed for determining location of an object of interest in the area.
We do not find the more general teaching associated with Figure 1 to be so limited. We
further note that even in McGary’s preferred embodiment (Fig. 3), image data produced
by the camera is used for the purpose of initial target acquisition. Col. 5, ll. 5-10.
However, even if the McGary system were to require target acquisition in the first
instance by means of target detection separate from the video camera, appellant has
not shown how the video cameras disclosed by McGary may be excluded from meeting
the requirements of the claimed “pilot camera,” as we pointed out on page 5 of the
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007