Appeal No. 2000-1179
Application No. 08/923,436
Claims 2-6, 14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § as being
unpatentable over Moghaddam, Bichsel, and Black.
Claims 15 and 16 have been deemed to contain allowable subject matter, but
are objected to as depending from a rejected claim.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 16) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
In the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 7-13, and 19 over Moghaddam and
Bichsel, the examiner sets forth findings with respect to Moghaddam, but turns to
Bichsel to show “incrementally refining the tracking parameters and the identification
coefficients” in the “face tracking method.” (Final Rejection at 3.) Appellants respond
that Bichsel does not disclose “iteratively recovering both parameter values and
identification coefficients” as claimed. “Instead, Bichsel discloses a pattern matching
technique that only involves the iterative recovery of parameter values.” (Brief at 6.)
Appellants complain, in the Reply Brief (at 4), of a perceived shift in the
examiner’s position in the Answer. We understand the examiner’s position in the
Answer to be that Moghaddam discloses tracking parameters and identification
coefficients (Answer at bottom of page 11). However, Bichsel is relied upon (as in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007