Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
“such a combination, might, in a general manner, have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
invention of HANEY, in some manner, using three-dimensional
stored graphic images and three-dimensional input data from a
living actor” [id.]. The following discussion will be based
on our determination that the combined teachings of Haney,
Appel and Frazer clearly would have suggested to the artisan
that the animation system of Haney should be implemented in
three dimensions in order to get a three-dimensional
perspective of a character’s movement.
Appellant argues that although Haney teaches the
storage of previously generated images, there is no teaching
or suggestion of using previously generated three-
dimensionally represented drawings to represent the various
spatial orientations of the image sections of a character
[brief, page 14]. The difference between this argument and
our determination that the collective prior art teaches
implementing Haney in a three-dimensional manner is subtle at
best. The three-dimensional aspect of the argument cannot be
critical, the previously generated aspect of the argument
cannot be critical, and the orientation aspect of the argument
cannot be critical because a three-dimensional version of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007