Ex Parte Georgiev - Page 7

               Appeal 2007-0337                                                                           
               Application 09/996,200                                                                     
                                                                                                         
               calculation inherently uses multiple points local to an area of the image as               
               claimed.  Furthermore, the warp vectors inherently have corresponding                      
               “components” (e.g., x and y components) that are extracted and applied to                  
               other areas of the image to animate the image in a manner commensurate                     
               with the desired image operation.  See Thomas, Fig. 8 (showing warp                        
               vectors at three corners of image with similar x and y components for a                    
               move operation).  This application of the “extracted” distortion component is              
               evident from the commensurate distortion of all four corners in Thomas’                    
               scaling operation shown in Fig. 3.                                                         
                     Appellant’s argument that Thomas does not extract a component of                     
               the distortion is simply not commensurate with the scope of the claim                      
               language.  A “component” of the distortion is fully met by a component of a                
               warp vector that is calculated responsive to a desired image operation.                    
                     Because Thomas discloses all limitations of representative claim 1, we               
               will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of that claim.  Since claim             
               1 is representative of the group including claims 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31,           
               32, and 34, those claims fall with claim 1.                                                
                     Regarding claims 3, 18, and 35,2 Appellant argues that although                      
               Thomas discloses affine transformations that can be applied to an object, the              
               reference does not disclose calculating an affine transform from a plurality               
               of points as claimed (Br. 10-11).  The Examiner responds that an affine                    
               transformation inherently involves plural points since (1) a matrix is used,               
               and (2) each matrix element represents a transformation of a point (Answer                 
               18).                                                                                       
                                                                                                         
               2 Appellant indicates that claim 3 is representative of this claim grouping                
               (Br. 10).                                                                                  
                                                    7                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013