Appeal 2007-0017
Application 10/074,179
Analysis
Appellant discloses that computing a face quality figure of merit is
done in several steps, where the camera computes: "(a) a brightness figure of
merit, (b) a noise level figure of merit, (c) a contrast figure of merit, and (d)
to check for the presence/absence of red eye in the respective detected
regions" (Specification para. 0088). Red-eye is not characterized as having
a figure of merit. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, we assume that the
phrase "face quality figure of merit" in the claim is broad enough to read on
a value that represents the presence or absence of red-eye..
Luo detects the location of red-eye. The detection of red-eye is
considered an indication of the photo quality, with the presence of red-eye
being unacceptable. Nevertheless, Luo does not provide "photo quality
feedback to a camera user," as claimed, because the red-eye is automatically
corrected in the camera or in the photo-finishing lab. That is, the camera
user would not be notified of the presence of red-eye so that the user could
take another picture. Thus, neither Ina nor Luo discloses providing "photo
quality feedback to a camera user," so, even if the references were
combined, the combination would not teach the invention of claim 14.
Moreover, the Examiner only relies on Luo for a teaching of the 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," and we
find no motivation to modify Ina to have a threshold since Ina does not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013