Ex Parte Georgiev - Page 8

               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