Appeal No. 2000-1179
Application No. 08/923,436
ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).
Even if we were to assume that face size and orientation in Bichsel could
properly be considered “identification coefficients,” the reference is not express in
disclosing incremental refinement of the face size and orientation by aligning, matching,
and reconstructing a view of the object in the image, as required of the identification
coefficients in claim 1. The Bichsel reference speaks of the actual process of “real-time
face tracking” in general terms (page 261, first column). The rejection does not point
out, nor explain, how the reference meets the above-noted requirements of claim 1.
Nor do we find any clear statement with respect to how the alleged teaching of
incremental refining of the “identification coefficients” is to be combined with the “set of
basis images,” for which the rejection relies on Moghaddam. The one who bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We conclude that the rejection fails to set forth a case of prima facie
obviousness for the subject matter as a whole of claim 1. The other independent
claims on appeal (10 and 19) set forth process steps having substantially the same
language as the limitations we have addressed in claim 1. We therefore do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 7-13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Moghaddam and Bichsel. Since the Black reference does not remedy the
deficiencies of the rejection applied against the independent claims, we do not sustain
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007