Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
different than we found for claim 1 in several ways, the
database includes more images and provides for correlation
functions, further the aspects are determined for all of the
images in the database.
We find that the Examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness. We find that the database teaching
of Lee is limited to two images. Lee does not teach that the
images are in a database where the images correspond to a unit
of speech. Further, Lee does not teach determining aspects
for more than the two images being animated. We find that
Lavagetto on page 628, column 1, teaches a “database of images
(key-pictures) reproducing the mouth expressions associated to
the pronunciation of each classified phoneme.” However, we
find that Lavagetto does not teach determining aspects of each
image which are common to other images in the database. We
find that the Examiner has failed to show that each limitation
in the claim is taught by the prior art. Specifically, the
prior art does not show “establishing some aspect of each
image of said database which relates to each other image in
the database,” where said database is “a database of images,
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007