Ex Parte MAHAFFEY et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-1558                                                        
          Application No. 09/464,841                                                  

               Independent claim 2 is reproduced as follows:                          
               2.  A computer system, comprising:                                     
               a camera producing image signals representing a first image            
          and a second image of a user’s face, wherein the first image                
          precedes the second image in time;                                          
               a display device; and                                                  
               a processing system coupled to receive the image signals               
          wherein the processing system is configured to:                             
               analyze the first and second images to determine the                   
          proximity of the user’s face to the camera; and                             
               provide display data to the display device dependent upon              
          the proximity of the user’s face to the camera.                             
               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Davis, Jr. et al. (Davis)      5,839,000        Nov. 17, 1998               
          Koizumi et al. (Koizumi)       6,259,470        Jul. 10, 2001               
                         (filed Dec. 18, 1997)                                        
               Claims 2, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as           
          anticipated by Koizumi, while claims 3-7, 13 and 15 stand                   
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Koizumi in              
          view of Davis.                                                              
               Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the                     
          respective positions of appellants and the examiner.                        



                                         -2–                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007