Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
transformation. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate such a teaching into Thomas’ method to determine the amount
of rotation due to the transformation (Answer 12-13).
Appellant argues that although Foley derives a rotation equation, the
prior art does not disclose extracting a rotation component of a distortion by
calculating an angle from the elements of a linear transform (Br. 15). The
Examiner responds that the rotation angle θ in Foley “can be derived by
simple mathematical manipulation” (Answer 19).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Although
Foley discloses a method for deriving an equation for rotating points of an
image through an angle θ, the reference does not disclose calculating the
angle from the elements of a linear transform matrix as claimed. Rather,
Foley states that positive angles of rotation are measured counterclockwise
from x towards y (Foley, Equations (5.6) through (5.9); Figs. 5.3-5.4).
Although the skilled artisan could rearrange Foley’s equations to
solve for the rotation angle θ in terms of the other variables, the Examiner
has simply not articulated on this record – nor can we ascertain – how such
an angle calculation would be combinable with Thomas’ distortion
component extraction method utilizing a matrix-based affine transformation
and which also warps the image. Merely because all claimed elements or
steps appear in the prior art is not per se sufficient to establish that it would
have been obvious to combine those elements. United States v. Adams, 383
U.S. 39 (1966). See also Smith Industries Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital
Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013