Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
Thus, Horaud gives reasons of why one of ordinary skill in the
art would use the Horaud 4-point solution in Huttenlocher's
method. Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the
art who sets out to solve the problem and has before him in
his workshop Huttenlocher's three point solution and Horaud's
4-point solution would have been reasonably expected to use
Horaud's 4-point solution in Horaud's method as claimed by
Appellant. On page 4 of the brief, Appellant argues
that claim 2 requires n to be a number in the range of 5 to 7.
Appellant argues that the exact transformation approach of
Huttenlocher and Horaud is nonexistent for five points. We
agree that this may be true for a random set of five points.
However, Horaud teaches that for five points in general
position, the strategy of the
4-point solution can as well be equally applied. Therefore,
we will sustain the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have addressed all of Appellant's arguments. We
are not required to raise and/or consider any further issue
not argued by Appellant. As stated by our reviewing court in
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007