Appeal 2007-0017
Application 10/074,179
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ina and Luo. The Examiner finds that Ina discloses the claimed
invention except for last limitation of "comparing said computed face quality
figure of merit to a threshold to determine if said face quality figure of merit
exceeds said threshold." The Examiner finds that this limitation was well
known in the art as taught by Luo and concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Ina to provide the comparing step as taught by Luo since
"such a modification would enable enhancement and manipulation of images
containing one or more human faces, so that, red-eye correction can be
reliably performed" (Final Rejection 6-7).
Claims 15-18 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ina and Luo, further in view of Cheatle.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ina and Luo, further in view of Lin.
DISCUSSION
Issues
The issues argued with respect to independent claim 14 are: (1) Does
Ina disclose "checking, in-camera, the photo quality of the captured image to
determine if the photo quality is acceptable"?; (2) Does Ina disclose
"computing a face quality figure of merit for the captured image"; and
(3) Does Luo make up for the deficiencies of Ina? We answer each of these
questions in the negative based on the following analysis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013