Appeal No. 1999-2023
Application No. 08/556,119
creating of a different hair image by the movement of the
feature points on a selector hair image so that the hair image
fits the facial image, it does not have any disclosure
regarding the means for constructing one or more facial
perimeter vectors by connecting feature points among said
second plurality of feature points distributed along a facial
perimeter, i.e., the facial image in Steir is fixed.
We also do not agree with the examiner that Hayashi shows
the recited means of obtaining transformed matching facial and
hair images (penultimate paragraph of claim 8). Instead,
Hayashi obtains its transformed facial image by simply
selecting from a prestored list of different expressions of
face in its memory via a pull down menu. Hayashi does not at
all disclose dealing with a hair image.
Therefore, we are of the view that the combination of
Sato, Steir, and Hayashi does not suggest or teach the recited
limitations of claim 8. Consequently, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 8 over Sato, Steir and Hayashi.
Since the other two independent claims, 1 and 15, each have at
least the limitations similar to the ones discussed above, we
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007