Appeal No. 2005-0167 Page 6
Application No. 10/272,722
In making this rejection, the examiner recognizes that Takemoto lacks a teaching
of scanning the image for facial features and rejecting the images if they do not include
a minimum number of facial features as is recited in claims 41, 48 and 55 from which all
the other claims depend. The examiner relies on Lambert for this teaching and
concludes:
... It would have been obvious to use a facial recognition
program in the invention of Takemoto et al. When one takes
an image and is going to use that image as a face of a
player, one would want to ensure that the image was
captured correctly. By scanning the image to determine if it
comprises specific facial features, one can be sure the
image was captured properly or may reject the image and
gather another. This way an image is not input into any files
or programs that is not complete or is deformed.
Consequently, the facial recognition program ensures that
only good images make it to the next level of processing
[answer at page 8].
We will not sustain this rejection as we agree with the appellants that there is no
motivation to combine the teachings of Takemoto and Lambert. In Takemoto’s first
embodiment, the player’s image replaces a symbol in the game to enhance the player’s
enjoyment of the game. Lambert discards the image if it is determined that a face with
eyes, mouth and nose is not detected. As Lambert searches for dark objects or eyes,
Lambert would not keep the image if the full view of the player’s face were not captured
such as if the player had a hat or sunglasses that obscured his eyes. This makes sense
for Lambert as it is directed to a system for identification purposes. However, such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007