Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
space. Appellant argues that his invention eliminates the
requirement that the animated character bear a resemblance to
the actor from which the data was obtained, however, we find
nothing recited in the claims which defines this relationship,
and the examiner has appropriately questioned just how much
resemblance would be within the scope of the claims anyway.
Appellant argues that the whereby clause which ends
claims 11 and 16 sufficiently distinguishes these claims from
the
teachings of Haney, Appel and Frazer [brief, pages 15-16].
We fail to see how a whereby recitation which notes that the
prestored images may have different proportions than the image
sections of the self-movable object used to generate the space
angles patentably distinguishes from the applied prior art.
As the examiner properly notes, there is no requirement in the
applied prior art that proportions be exactly the same between
prestored images and the movable object.
Appellant argues that the storing of three-dimensional
images at unique addresses as claimed patentably distinguishes
the claimed invention from the applied prior art. Again, we
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007