Appeal No. 2006-2345
Application No. 10/366,458
Hoshino et al. (Hoshino) 6,339,483 Jan. 15, 2002
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 6,812,467 Nov. 2, 2004
(filed Nov. 25, 2002)
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bilbrey and Nakamura.
Claims 2, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bilbrey, Nakamura and Hoshino.
We make reference to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the briefs have not been considered (37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues
that since Bilbrey includes no teaching or suggestion of loss of
distance data with changing zoom ratio, the reason to combine
references must have come from Appellant=s invention (brief, page
7). Appellant further asserts that Nakamura is outside of the
field of visible/infrared virtual studio imaging cameras, as
recited in claim 1, which is used to determine the distance from
the camera to objects in the field of view (brief, page 8). With
respect to the claimed moving support means, Appellant further
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007