Appeal 2007-0597
Application 10/423,523
Westfield and Lee fail to cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of
Hunter (Br. 14 to 16).
Turning lastly to the other claims on appeal concerning fields of views
of the cameras, we agree with Appellant’s contentions that the applied
references to Hunter, Westfield and Lee neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art “a low-resolution camera having
a first field of view, and wherein each of the high-resolution cameras has a
field of view that is a subset of the first field of view” (claim 11) or “the
low-resolution camera has a field of view that is substantially the same as a
combined field of view of the plurality of high-resolution cameras” (claim
20) (Br. 16 to 18).
ISSUE (2)
Does the applied prior art teach or suggest a low-resolution camera
powering on a high-resolution camera based on detected motion in a sensed
region?
FINDINGS OF FACT (2)
As indicated supra, the low-resolution camera 104 disclosed by
Appellant controls the powering on of each of the high-resolution cameras
106A to 106O based on detected motion in sensed region.
As indicated supra, each of the cameras 10 in Hunter has a low-
resolution mode as well as a high-resolution mode. The low-resolution side
of each of the cameras 10 controls the powering on of the associated high-
resolution side based on detected motion of an object (paragraph 0026).
Hunter, like the disclosed and claimed invention, operates in the low-power
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013