Appeal No. 96-2994
Application 08/282,413
of simplification noted by Fuchs, however, do not suggest the
determination of a second partitioning plane only when the
first or second object moves
across a first partitioning plane which is defined as being
between the two objects.
Claims 1 and 14 require that action take place based
on a specific type of relative movement between a first and
second object in a virtual reality environment. The movement
recited in the claims has nothing to do with the movement of
the observer within the virtual reality environment. Only a
specific type of movement of one object within the environment
with respect to another object within the environment leads to
the determination of a second partitioning plane as recited in
claims 1 and 14. Such a determination is not suggested by the
combined teachings of Corthout and Fuchs.
Since we agree with appellants that the combined
teachings of Corthout and Fuchs do not teach or suggest the
invention of independent claims 1 and 14, we do not sustain
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007