Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
We note that claim 1 only requires a database containing
two images. In determining the scope of the term “database”,
we look to the Appellants’ specification. Appellants’
specification on page 11, lines 2 and 3, identifies that the
images are captured, numbered and stored to form a database.
We fail to find a different definition of “database” than the
ordinary meaning of storing data. Thus we conclude that the
scope of the “forming a database of images including at least
said first and second image” limitation of claim 1 is that
there are two images stored in a computer’s memory. We find
that Lee teaches that two images are stored on a workstation
and as such the two images are stored in a computer memory.
Accordingly we find that Lee’s teaching of storing two images
in computer memory meets the above claim 1 limitation.
Appellants further assert on page 6 of the brief that Lee
teaches away from storing images in a database as Lee
calculates the images each time a morphing is to be performed.
As previously identified the scope of Appellants' claim
1 includes a database containing at least two images. While
it is appreciated that Appellants' database of images approach
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007