Appeal No. 2003-1545
Application 09/292,499
We agree with appellants and will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The claims require two operator input operations
(identifying first and second regions, corresponding,
respectively, to a selected portion of a monitored area as viewed
in the reference image, and to the selected portion as viewed on
the map) with warp transformation parameters being defined for
translating a selected point in the first region into a
corresponding point in the second region. Then, inter alia, a
first point near a lower end of the portion of a further image
corresponding to an object of interest is selected, and a warp
transformation of the first point from the first region to the
second region according to the defined warp transform parameters
is carried out.
As appellants point out (at page 12 of the principal brief),
Irani recognizes the need for warp transform parameters but
Irani fails to teach how the warp transform parameters are
defined. Moreover, Irani teaches a requirement for information
for aligning video frames, but does not suggest that operator
identified corresponding regions is the way to achieve this
alignment.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007