Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
each image corresponding to one of said units of speech.”
Further we find that the Examiner has not shown that the prior
art suggests any reason to modify Lee to include “a database
of images, each image corresponding to one of said units of
speech,” and to establish “some aspect of each image of said
database which relates to each other image in the database.”
For the foregoing reasons we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee and Lavagetto. Claims 7, 9, 16 and 24
all depend upon claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of these
claims will not be sustained. Similarly we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 11 through 15, 17 through 23
and 25 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. 2
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Lavagetto and
Terzopoulos as these claims are all ultimately dependent upon
claim 6.
Turning to claim 2, we find that dependent claim 2
contains the limitation “said first and second and other
2 The scope of claim 26 as presented cannot be determined
as the limitation “said keypoint” lacks antecedent basis.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007