Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
in Haney are based upon a plurality of stances and positions
of an animated character as determined in two dimensions. The
actor’s movements are monitored in two dimensions, and each of
the actor’s movements is used to address a corresponding
prestored image section based on the direction of movement.
The examiner recognizes that Haney is a two-dimensional
system, and the examiner cites Appel or Frazer as teaching the
desirability of monitoring the movements of an object in three
dimensions.
Appellant first notes the deficiencies in each of the
individual references [brief, pages 8-12]. Since we are
considering a rejection on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
rather than anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we will not
address the assertions that none of the applied prior art
individually discloses the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claims 11 and 16,
appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection is based on an
improper use of hindsight to reconstruct appellant’s invention
based on appellant’s own disclosure [brief, page 13]. With
respect to the three references applied by the examiner,
appellant asserts that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007