Ex Parte Uebbing - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-0597                                                                             
               Application 10/423,523                                                                       

               resolution cameras is associated with a set of the plurality of the image                    
               sensing regions.  The low-resolution camera detects motion based on sensed                   
               images, identifies a set of the image sensing regions based on the motion,                   
               and powers on the high-resolution camera associated with the identified set                  
               of image sensing regions. (Figure 1; Specification 3 and 15).                                
                      Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as                    
               follows:                                                                                     
                      1. A camera system, comprising:                                                       
                      a first camera having a low-resolution image sensor with a plurality of               
               image sensing regions;                                                                       
                      a plurality of high-resolution cameras, each of the high-resolution                   
               cameras associated with a set of the plurality of image sensing regions; and                 
                      wherein the first camera is configured to detect motion based on                      
               sensed images, identify a set of the image sensing regions based on the                      
               motion, and power on the high-resolution camera associated with the                          
               identified set of image sensing regions.                                                     
                      The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                  
               appeal is:                                                                                   
               Lee                US 6,392,632                   May 21, 2002                              
               Hunter             US 2003/0025800 A1              Feb. 6, 2003                              
               Smith              US 2004/0001149 A1              Jan. 1, 2004                              
                                                            (filed Jun. 28, 2002)                           
               Westfield          US 6,677,979                   Jan. 13, 2004                             
                                                            (filed Jun. 12, 2001)                           
                      The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.                 
               § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Hunter.  The Examiner rejected claims                   

                                                     2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013