Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer, appellant’s specification, and
Appeal brief for the full details of the rejections and the appellant’s response thereto.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the arguments of the appellant and the examiner.
As a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to all the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of the claims on appeal. Our reasons follow.
Turning first to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37 which stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Keithley in view of Hansen, these claims
recite a method where 360 degree rotational panoramic images are recorded and
stored in a central database. The user can enter selection criteria and display rotational
panoramic images for each property through the use of a terminal. An audio
accompaniment can be recorded and played for each property. The centralized
computer stores and matches entered user identification and passwords.
We find that Keithley teaches a method for recording and storing digitized
property information in a central database. The Keithley method provides the user with
a terminal for communicating with the database. A centralized computer stores and
matches entered user identification. The user enters criteria and matching properties
are displayed. Digitized pictures of the property are provided. Keithley also discusses
viewing digitized pictures while listening to detailed property descriptions. With the
exception of using 360-degree rotational panoramic visual images, we find that the
Keithley reference teaches the elements of claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007