Appeal No. 2000-1179
Application No. 08/923,436
Final Rejection) to show incremental refining of tracking parameters and identification
coefficients, which is deemed to be “well known” in the art. (Answer at 13.)
In any event, we agree with appellants that Bichsel does not disclose the
features that the rejection attributes to the reference. The rejection asserts, with regard
to Bichsel, that “the face size and orientation can [be] viewed as the identification
coefficients and the position of the face can be viewed as the tracking parameters.”
(Answer at 4-5.) However, the rejection appears to recognize no distinction between
parameters and coefficients -- notwithstanding their recognized meanings in the art --
and uses the terms interchangeably. For example, “face/head size” and “face/head
orientation” are first deemed to be parameters, and then (secondly) identification
coefficients. (Id. at 11.)
In light of the commentary on page 11 of the Answer, the blurring of parameters
and coefficients may be based on the perceived “definition” of “identification
coefficients” at page 8, lines 1 through 5 of the specification. However, page 8 of the
specification does not define “identification coefficients,” but merely refers to how they
are to be used; i.e., the coefficients “are used to recognize changes of view in the
object being tracked through the sequence of images 12.” As such, there is no
satisfactory explanation in this record as to why an artisan would have regarded face
size and orientation in Bichsel as “identification coefficients.” During patent
prosecution, the USPTO is to apply to claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words, consistent with their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007