Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
Examiner further points out that Huttenlocher does not teach
that n is equal to 4 as claimed in Appellant's claim 1.
However, the Examiner points out that Huttenlocher did suggest
on page 209 that n could be equal to 4 and, in addition,
points to Horaud which teaches a 4 or greater point
embodiment.
We appreciate Appellant's argument that Horaud and
Huttenlocher are an exact transformation approach. However,
we fail to find that Appellant's claim 1 distinguishes over
the exact transformation approach of Huttenlocher and Horaud.
In particular, we fail to find that the claim sets forth that
the four points in the three space and the four points in the
image plane must be a random set.
Appellant further argues on page 3 of the brief that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not try Huttenlocher's
approach for four points. Appellant argues that the alignment
transformation would usually not exist and there would not be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007