Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 11
Application No. 09/241,700
reliance on Ritchey (U.S. Patent No. 5,130,794) in support of
appellant’s argument (reply brief, page 4) that “the cameras need
to be supported above the person’s head to take a panoramic
image” and be “fixedly predisposed relative to each other” is not
well taken. This is so because Ritchey, which is not relied upon
by the examiner in the stated rejections, does not explicitly
teach that other user attached camera arrangements are not
workable. In fact, Ritchey does not refute the evidence of
record regarding the obviousness of locating cameras on a user’s
clothing rather than in an over the head position. Compare
drawing Figures 1 and 2 of Winningstad.
For reasons discussed above and in the answer, the relied
upon evidence reasonably suggests that other alternative camera
positions, including non-rigid garment mounted arrangements,
would be expected to be functional in forming a panoramic image
given that misalignments and distortions are correctable as
suggested by Henley.
Concerning representative claim 12, appellant further
maintains that the claim 12 requirement for a rigid frame that is
appellant seemingly acknowledges that prior art techniques were
available at the time of the invention to compensate for camera
misalignment. See, e.g., page 7, lines 7-9 of appellant’s
specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007