Appeal No. 2002-1047
Application 09/083,174
pickup device and a plurality of positions lying on a virtual
closed surface, and wherein the virtual visual points are not
lying on the virtual closed surface as recited in Appellants’
claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Fields. Appellants argue that Fields fails
to teach “said first virtual visual point is not lying on said
first virtual closed surface” and that “said second virtual
visual point is not lying on said second virtual closed surface”
as recited in independent claim 9. See page 12 of the brief.
We note that Fields teaches a video conference in which
three cameras provide a left, center, and right view of the
conferee. Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 are perspective views
showing the different forms of the teleconference station. See
Fields, column 3, lines 60 through 63. We fail to find any
teaching in Fields that the first virtual visual point is not
lying on the first visual closed surface and that the second
virtual visual point is not lying on the second virtual closed
surface as required by claims 9 and 11. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007