Ex Parte Janson - Page 2




                Appeal No. 2006-2103                                                                                               
                Application No. 09/780,817                                                                                         

                object nodes in the set of visible and undefined object nodes from the server to the client, the                   
                graphical client renders the scene from the object nodes.                                                          
                        Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:                                     
                        1. A computer-implemented method for synchronizing data between a graphical                                
                client and a server, comprising:                                                                                   
                        (a) downloading one or more root object nodes of a scene from the server to the                            
                graphical client, wherein the scene is a collection of parameter values for rendering a model;                     
                        (b) intersecting bounding volumes for the object nodes with a view frustum in the                          
                graphical client to determine a set of visible and undefined object nodes, wherein the view                        
                frustum is the part of the model between cutting planes defined by the scene; and                                  
                        (c) downloading the object nodes in the set of visible and undefined object nodes                          
                from the server to the graphical client, wherein the graphical client renders the scene from                       
                the object nodes.                                                                                                  
                        The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                                                            
                Fisher      6,331,858   Dec. 18, 2001                                                                              
                                                                                        (filed Jun. 02, 1998)                      
                Schmeidler et al. (Schmeidler)  6,374,402   Apr. 16, 2002                                                          
                                                                                       (filed May 12, 1999)                        
                Berger et al. (Berger)    6,414,693    Jul. 02, 2002                                                               
                                                                                       (filed Oct. 12, 1999)                       
                                                                                                                                  
                        Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-25 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                      
                anticipated by Fisher.  Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
                § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Fisher in view of Schmeidler                            
                with respect to claims 8, 17, and 26, and Fisher in view of Berger with respect to claims 9,                       
                18, and 27.                                                                                                        



                                                               -2-                                                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007