Appeal No. 2006-2963
Application No. 10/309,969
W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met
by the disclosure of Peters [Answer, pages 3-6]. Regarding independent claims 1, 11,
and 21, Appellants argue that Peters does not teach or suggest providing a pair of
positions (fi, fi+1), directions (di, di+1), and curvatures (ki, ki+1), and determining a quartic
interpolant p(t) upon points b0, b1, b2, b3, and b4 which, in turn, are based upon the
provided positions, directions, and curvatures [Brief, pages 4 and 5; emphasis in
original]. Appellants contend that Peters discloses that the tangent t at the specified
positions P is defined based upon the C Bezier coefficients, which are, in turn, derived
based upon the specified positions P [Brief, page 5]. Appellants emphasize that not
only are the tangents in Peters not provided, they are determined after determining the
interpolant [Brief, pages 5 and 6]. In contrast, the approach of the claimed invention
necessarily determines the interpolant p(t) based upon the provided pair of directions
[id.].
The Examiner argues that Peters determines coefficient C based upon positional
and tangent data including the tangent length. The Examiner further notes that Peters
also derives coefficients B1 and B0 based on positional, tangent, and curvature data
[Answer, pages 14 and 15]. Appellants respond that determining coefficient C based on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007