Appeal No. 95-4722
Application 07/946,226
The examiner’s rejection fails to consider the claimed
invention as a whole and fails to ascertain whether the
artisan would have been motivated to use interpolation in the
Wah Lo device.
Since we are of the view that the artisan would have
no motivation to use Travis’ broad interpolation suggestion in
the Wah Lo depth image producing device, we conclude that the
invention recited in each of the claims on appeal would not
have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the teachings of Wah Lo and Travis. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of any of claims 1-17 and 21-24.
We now consider the rejection of claims 18-20 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Hiraoka in view of Travis.
For each of these claims, the examiner’s rejection takes the
position that Hiraoka implicitly teaches specific recitations
of the claims. That is, with respect to claim 18, the
examiner asserts that “Hiraoka implicitly teaches identifying
a volume with the greatest number of image edges and shifting
the perspective of the views to rotate around the volume”
[answer, page 17]. With respect to claims 19 and 20, the
examiner asserts that “Hiraoka implicitly teaches shifting the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007