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