Appeal No. 2005-1045
Application No. 09/225,574
Mann’s video camera forms a real-time video signal of a
student engaged in golf. When the student views the video while
trying to match the model superimposed on the student in the
video, the student is receiving real-time instructional feedback
of the student in the video engaged in the activity of golf and
is performing the activity of golf.
Therefore, we are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claim 38 over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claims
40-42, 46-48, 50, 51 and 54 that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 39
Brostedt discloses displaying a video of a golf instructor
on video glasses worn by a student, and teaches that the glasses
eliminate the need for the student to change the student’s field
of vision to view a video monitor (page 3, line 33 - page 4,
line 5).
The appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to combine Brostedt with Mann
because Brostedt’s goal is for a student to compare the student’s
performance with an actual instructor and not a simulated model,
whereas Mann uses complex processing operations to match an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007