Appeal No. 2003-1545
Application 09/292,499
Appellants also argue that while Irani specifies a type of
user input device, he does not suggest the user input to identify
a region within the reference image as recited in claims 1 and
13. Thus, argues appellants, Irani does not show or suggest
“receiving operator input identifying a first region which
corresponds to a selected portion of the monitored area as viewed
in the reference image” (claim 1) or “permit an operator to
define a first region via the operator input/output section which
corresponds to a selected portion of the area as viewed in the
reference image” (claim 13).
Further, appellants point out that Irani does not suggest
the identification of a second region as recited in claims
1 and 13.
Moreover, appellants argue that Wixson does not remedy the
deficiencies of Irani because Wixson discloses operator input to
specify a new target point of a camera but this does not “make
obvious identification of two regions within respective reference
image and map as recited in claims 1 and 13" (principal brief-
page 9).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007