Appeal No. 2003-1545
Application 09/292,499
The examiner relies on the following references:
Irani et al. (Irani) 5,768,447 Jun. 16, 1998
(filed Jun. 14, 1996)
Gu et al. (Gu) 6.097,853 Aug. 1, 2000
(filed Aug. 18, 1997)
Wixson et al. (Wixson) 6,396,961 May 28, 2002
(eff. filing date Nov. 12, 1997)
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 13-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Irani and
Wixson with regard to claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 13-16, adding Gu with
regard to claims 17-23.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that
Irani teaches the claimed subject matter but for a disclosure of
receiving operator input between two regions and defining warp
transformation parameters.
The examiner turns to Wixson (Figures 2, 3 and column 6,
lines 64+) for a teaching of operator interaction. The examiner
notes that warp transformation parameters are defined at column
4, line 27 through column 7, where a selected area is transformed
to the same selected area in another frame. The examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007