Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 18, and 35.
Thomas’ original Transformer object supported only affine transformations
such as rotation, scaling, and translation (Thomas 7). Thomas notes that
affine mappings can be computed as matrix products in a homogeneous
coordinate system. As a result, a sequence of affine mappings can be
represented as a single matrix operation (Thomas 8). Although warp
mapping is not affine, it is nevertheless combined with affine
transformations in a process that applies each transformation in turn (Id.). In
our view, Thomas’ scaling operation with affine transformation that utilizes
a matrix (i.e., a plurality of points) and which also warps the image fully
meets calculating an affine transform from the plurality of points as claimed
given the scope and breadth of the limitation. The Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 3, 18, and 35 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 13, 28, and 37,3 Appellant argues that Thomas does
not disclose extracting a component of distortion, much less applying the
extracted component to the entire image. The Examiner responds by noting
that the entire object in Fig. 1 is distorted. The Examiner also refers to Figs.
3 and 4 (Answer 18).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 28, and 37.
For the reasons previously discussed, we find that Thomas reasonably
teaches extracting and applying a component of distortion.4 For example,
Thomas’ scaling operation in Fig. 3 and movement operation in Fig. 8
applies the distortion component to the entire image. Because all limitations
3 Appellant indicates that claim 13 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 11).
4 See P. 6-7, supra, of this decision.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013