Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
claim2 - Coggle Diagram
claim2
novelty
analysis from above under the AIA regime is not displaced greatly by the addition of the language in claim 2 "using an array of diverging infrared emitting beams aligned such that the beam space correlates with depth distance measured from the beam source."
Although we may need more information with regards to the prior art in this case, it does not appear that infrared beams have ever been used to aid in the method of facial motion capture prior to Sotlz's invention of this method.
Unless some prior art emerges to contradict this fact, claim 2 also satisfies the novelty requirement.
non-obviousness
-
Again, more information may be needed on the prior art in this case in order to determine whether the invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. For example, have infrared beams even been used in non-facial motion capture in the film industry, to capture body movement, etc.? If so, then claim 2 of Stolz's invention may have been obvious.
However, the secondary considerations under John Deer Co. (1966) seem to indicate that this method was a true breakthrough in the animation world that was not obvious even to a PHOSITA in the animation field.
Therefore, without more information about conflicting prior art, I would argue that claim 2 satisfies the non-obviousness requirement.
patent-able;
Like claim 1, claim 2 satisfies the requirement for patentable subject matter because it claims a method,
this time even more specifically: using an infrared base mesh of the head of a person to capture facial movement and animate and emoji with the corresponding facial expression.
Utility;
Like claim 1, claim 2 satisfies the requirement for utility because it has a specific and substantial utility that is credible.
The method is useful for the animation of emojis to match various facial expressions. This is more than useful enough to qualify for a patent.
under $282(a) of the patent Act,Each claim of a patent is presumed valid independent of the validity of other claims.
Claim 2 must therefore stand as valid on its own, regardless of the validity of Claim 1.
disclosure
claim 2 enables a PHOSITA to make and use in infrared base mesh without undue experimentation, satisfying the enablement requirement.s
It also satisfies the written description requirement because, taking the entire specification into account from the perspection of a PHOSITA, the invention is understanable and shows that Soltz actually invented the method. (Ariad, Fed. Cir. 2010)
Therefore, claim 2 is also likely valid.