Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
is different than Lee’s approach, Appellants’ claim 1 does not
distinguish Appellants’ approach from Lee’s approach.
Finally, in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the
brief, Appellants argue that even if Lee were to be construed
as containing a database, Lee does not teach “maintaining a
specified relationship between said aspects.” We find that
Lee teaches on page 35, section 3.2, “[t]he set S represents
the feature correspondence between” the two images. We find
that Lee’s set S meets Appellants’ ”aspects.” Further, on
page 35 section 3.2, Lee teaches that the warp function maps
the points from one image to the second. We find that Lee’s
warp function performs Appellants’ claimed “maintaining a
specified relationship between said aspects.”
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of Claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007