Appeal No. 2003-1545
Application 09/292,499
specifically notes column 5, line 47, and column 6, line 17.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the system of Irani with that taught by Wixson “for the
purpose of operator interaction with the system. Because Irani
col. 1, line 52-54 teaches that well-known alignment system (like
Wixson) be incorporated into the system” (sic,
answer-page 4).
Appellants argue that the examiner has confused two very
important aspects of the invention, the first being “defining
warp transformation parameters” for a warp transformation between
the map and the reference image and the further image; and the
second being the use of the warp transformation in transforming a
first point in the reference image to a second point in the map,
according to the defined warp transformation parameters.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that while Irani’s system
provides a portion of a reference model that includes a position
within a video sequence, indicating the use of warp transform
parameters for a warp transformation of a user-selected point or
region, this is not the specification of a region within the
reference image used to define the warp transform parameters, as
claimed.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007