Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
Hansen teaches generating a navigable environment inside a travel agency. It would
have been obvious to also employ a navigable environment inside a house, since
Keithley suggests providing enhanced viewing of properties through the use of virtual
reality and display technologies.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Keithley and Hansen would
result in computer-generated art depicting a home environment. Appeal brief, page 9.
As stated earlier, Hansen teaches the generation and recording of real life video
images. Col. 5, line 7. Thus the combination of Keithley and Hansen results in the
generation of real images. Also, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or
all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. In this case, Keithley directly
suggests the use of virtual reality technology.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28, and 30-37, we
also affirm the rejection of these claims as being obvious over Keithley in view of Berger
and further in view of Doom. In addition to covering the same subject matter as claims
1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28, and 30-37 recite using
a map or floor plan as a graphical representation of the property. Also, the claims recite
using an arrow as a perspective indicator and using perspective commands such as “go
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007