Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
to kitchen.” The examiner uses Berger and Doom as secondary references to show this
subject matter of the claims.
The appellant argues that Berger is not a proper reference because it is
speculative that it teaches “what could be as opposed to what is.” Appeal brief, pages
9-10. We disagree. Although the Berger reference does discuss future technologies, it
also discusses the current state of the art. The Berger reference asserts that “[s]ome
high tech offices already use computerized mapping and interactive video tours of
houses.” The reference explains that rotating a video camera on a tripod and capturing
views from every angle can create a seamless mosaic or panoramic visual image of the
interior of a house. Thus, the Berger reference discusses the current state of the art.
With regards to Doom, appellant argues that Doom is nonanalogous art and
therefore is not a proper secondary reference. Appeal brief, page 10. Appellant
explains that her problem is directed to showing real estate property, whereas Doom is
a computer game. Appeal brief, pages 10-11. We find that Doom teaches a method for
navigating through a multi-level environment using a map and perspective indicator.
Keithley teaches the use of virtual reality to aid in showing a house and Berger teaches
the use of a virtual tour where the viewer can control what is shown. Since Doom is
directed to the problem of navigating a virtual reality environment, it is directed to the
problem to which appellant’s invention pertains.
With respect to claim 37, appellant argues that the hardware used in Doom does
not meet the limitations of claim 37. Appeal brief, page 14. The appellant’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007