Appeal No. 2006-2963
Application No. 10/309,969
positions P and P+ located on a curve that are chosen in Peters inherently includes
associated directions and curvatures as claimed.
As the Examiner indicates, Peters determines control points C based upon
positional data, tangent direction, and tangent length [Peters, page 239]. Since (1) C
corresponds to one of the claimed identified points b0 - b4 , and (2) C is determined
based on positional data, C is therefore identified based upon the pair of positions as
claimed. In addition, Peters determines coefficients B1 and B0 based on positional and
tangent data as the Examiner indicates [Peters, page 238]. Therefore, all of the Bezier
coefficients P, B0, C, B1, P+ described in Peters are identified based, at least in part,
upon the pair of positions – positions inherently having associated directions and
curvatures as we noted previously. Moreover, since the quartic interpolant in Peters is
determined based upon the Bezier coefficients over an interval, all limitations of
independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are therefore fully met by Peters.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 21. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 8-10, 18-20, and 28-30, these claims fall with the
independent claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peters in view of de Boor. Regarding
claims 2, 5, and 6, the examiner’s rejection essentially finds that Peters discloses all of
the claimed subject matter except for identifying a control point based on the convex
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007