Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In regard to claims 1 through
4, we find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case
and thereby met this burden, but has failed to meet this
burden for claim 13.
On pages 3 and 4 of the brief, Appellant argues that
the exact transformation approach of Huttenlocher and Horaud
do not teach or suggest the step of generating approximation
transformations which need not map the model (object) points
onto the image points, that is, the model and image points
need not match. Appellant further argues that Huttenlocher's
three point alignment transformation does not generate a four
point trans-formation simply because a four point alignment
transformation usually does not exist. Appellant argues that
given a random set of four points in three space and a random
set of four points in an image plane, the probability of an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007