Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 4
Application No. 09/241,700
representative of a second claim grouping including claims 12 and
14.
As correctly pointed out by the examiner, Henley discloses
the use of multiple digital cameras to form panoramic images
therefrom. Appellant does not dispute that finding of the
examiner. Indeed, appellant acknowledges the prior art formation
of panoramic scenes from image data obtained from a plurality of
cameras at page 1 of the specification.2
The examiner relies on Winningstad for disclosing that a
camera can be worn by a user and that a recorder can be used for
storing the captured images. In this regard, Winningstad (column
5, lines 15-23) discloses that a camera can be attached to a
jacket or vest and a cable (electrical conductive connections)
can be sewn inside a jacket lining. Moreover, Winningstad
(column 2, lines 30-36) teaches that a user activated switch can
be employed to operate the camera. Winningstad (sentence
bridging columns 6 and 7) further teaches that such a user
mounted camera has the advantage that the operator’s hands are
2 The starting point for appellant's invention, for purposes
of 35 U.S.C. § 103, is what appellant admits to be prior art.
See In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 302 (CCPA
1969); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA
1962).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007