Appeal No. 2003-1558
Application No. 09/464,841
images to determine proximity of a user’s face to a camera and
then merely display the user’s face, or one of the images of the
user’s face, because the same face would be displayed regardless
of proximity. Because such a reading makes little or no sense,
and it is clear from the specification that the “display data”
comprises something other than an image taken by the camera
(e.g., see page 11 which recites “a file structure, a GUI, a Web
document, or a map represented by tree 36)”, we will construe the
claimed “display data” as something other than the camera image.
As such, the examiner’s reading of a camera image as the
claimed “display data” is flawed.
Since Koizumi does not teach or suggest an analysis of first
and second images to determine the proximity of a user’s face to
a camera and does not teach or suggest providing display data
dependent upon the proximity of the user’s face to the camera, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2, or of
claims 8 and 9, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Moreover, we also will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 3-7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
these claims depend from independent claim 2 and Davis, the
reference relied on by the examiner for a showing of a zooming
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007