Appeal No. 1999-2069
Application 08/397,639
known transformations for image registration, which are simpler
than the nonlinear warping of Kano.
Appellants argue that Smilansky does not suggest adjusting
positions of images for the purpose of adding and/or subtracting
images and, therefore, does not provide any motivation to combine
its teaching with those of Kano (Br5-6). The Examiner notes that
claim 1 does not positively recite a step of subtraction, but
that, in any case, Kano is relied on to show subtraction (EA11).
We agree with the Examiner. The rejection relies on
Smilansky for its teaching that affine transformations were known
transformations for image registration. Kano teaches subtraction
in connection with image registration.
Appellants argue that Kano uses nonlinear warping rather
than affine transformation because Kano's purpose is completely
different than that of the present invention and "[t]herefore, it
cannot be easily conceived for the ordinary skilled in the art to
replace the non-linear warping of Kano et al. with the affine
transformation of Smilansky et al., even if the equations used in
each of these references are similar to each other" (Br6).
Kano "employs nonlinear distortion (warping) of one of the
images in order to obtain improved registration between the two
images so that subtraction processing can be carried out"
(col. 5, lines 61-64). One of ordinary skill in the image
registration art would have had sufficient skill to recognize
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007