Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
from one image to the next. Further, we note Appellants'
following statement on page 11, lines 7 through 11:
However, the tiepointing system in Lee is done from
the point of view of a surface morphing technique.
Nothing in Lee teaches or suggests determining
tiepoints in each image "which are associated with
similar tiepoints in other images in the database."
This statement suggests that Appellants recognize that Lee
teaches tiepoints, but differentiates claim 83 based upon the
database distinction argued with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we find that Lee’s set of points S meets
Appellants’ claimed “tiepoints.”
We next turn to claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 16 and 24, which
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee and Lavagetto. After considering the record before
us we find that the teachings of Lee and Lavagetto in
combination do not teach or make obvious the invention of
claims 2, 3, 6, 7 9, 16 and 24.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007