Appeal 2007-0017
Application 10/074,179
compute a face quality figure of merit that it capable of being compared to a
threshold. Therefore, Luo does not make up for the deficiencies of Ina.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the rejection does not establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 14 is reversed.
The Examiner does not rely upon Cheatle or Lin, which are applied in
the rejections of dependent claims 15-19 and 27, to meet any of the
limitations in claim 14. We decline to consider whether Cheatle or Lin
would cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 14. The rejections of
claims 15-19 and 27 are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 14-19 and 27 are reversed.
REVERSED
KIS
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P. O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013