Appeal No. 1999-1442
Application No. 08/610,681
Both the examiner (answer at pages 7 through 9) and
appellants (brief at pages 5 through 11) agree that the only
limitation where the two parties disagree lies in the phrase
“using only two-dimensional prerendered views of 3D objects”
(claim 1), and the corresponding limitation “utilizing said
surface maps . . . of each object” (claim 13). Appellants
argue (brief at pages 6, 7) that the claimed apparatus or the
method only utilizes 2D prerendered views whereas Redmann
utilizes both the 3D polygon and the 2D texture maps which are
projected onto each surface of the polygon. The examiner
asserts, answer at page 7, that “[i]t is the examiner’s
position that the proper interpretation of this language is
that this refers to what can
be seen in the final image and not to what data may be used by
the rendering process.” We are not persuaded by the examiner.
The apparatus in claim 1 and the method recited in claim 13,
each calls for the limitations as stated above. We find that
claim 1 requires means for producing a three-dimensional image
of an object by selecting only the two-dimensional prerendered
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007