Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
teaching that the determinant of a matrix indicates the extent of expansion or
contraction of a cube. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate Foley’s teaching in Thomas’ method to determine transform
magnification (Answer 13, 19).
Appellant argues that neither Thomas nor Foley extract a
magnification component of a distortion by calculating an affine transform
from a plurality of points and calculating the determinant of a linear
transformation matrix as claimed (Br. 14-15).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Appellant has
simply not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness apart from merely arguing that the prior art does not disclose or
suggest the claimed limitations. We see no reason why the skilled artisan
would not have relied on the teachings of Foley in calculating a determinant
of the matrix and apply such a teaching in Thomas’ method essentially for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. The Examiner’s prima facie case based
on the combined teachings of the cited references has not been rebutted.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Since
claim 5 is representative of the group comprising claims 5 and 20,8 we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner finds that Thomas discloses all of
the claimed subject matter except the extraction of rotation comprising
calculating an angle from the elements of a linear transform matrix. The
Examiner cites Foley as teaching deriving an angle of rotation from an affine
8 Appellant indicates that claim 5 is representative of the group consisting of
claims 5 and 20 (Br. 14).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013