Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
OPINION
Of the subject matter on appeal in claims 1-16, we sustain
only the rejection of claims 10-12 and 16 generally for the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as embellished
upon here.
At the outset, we note that method independent claim 1 and
apparatus independent claim 6 are complementary method and
apparatus claims of substantially the same subject matter. For
purposes of appeal, the significant limitations to be considered
are the fact that a projector projects a plurality of lines of
light having different intensities across the edges claimed. In
corresponding respective method and apparatus independent claims
10 and 12, the subject matter that is the focus of the appeal is
that the camera has an adjustable exposure, whereas the projector
more broadly recites than in independent claims 1 and 6 a mere
projection of a plurality of lines of light across the edges; in
these claims there is no requirement that the plurality of lines
of light have different intensities across these edges as recited
in claims 1 and 6 on appeal. Similarly, corresponding method and
apparatus independent claims 13 and 14 on appeal are somewhat
like independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal in that the light
source has a controllable light intensity notwithstanding the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007