Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
However, it appears that the examiner has made up an
interpretation of HP-DESIGN to fit the claim language, which we
consider to be unreasonable. We do not see how HP-DESIGN can be
fairly said to show a matrix mapping relationship between design
commands and replication commands. The specification defines
matrix mapping as using a matrix to transform the points used in
a design command to a point in a replication command through
translation or rotation matrices (e.g., specification,
pages 12-14) and we construe the claim limitation to have this
meaning. Neither HP-DESIGN nor AutoCAD discloses matrix mapping
as described in the specification. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of claim 16.
It was well known to use a transformation matrix to perform
translation, scaling, and rotation of 2- and 3-D points. See
Foley et al., Computer Graphics Principles and Practice (2d ed.
1990), pages 204-210 (copy attached) (this book is not prior art
and we do not have the 1982 edition of this book; however, the
same transformations should be found in any book on computer
graphics before 1989). Note that the difference between, for
example, the transformation on lines 2-4 of appellant's
specification and equation 5.1 in Foley is the use of row vectors
and premultiplication by appellant, which is merely a different
convention. As Foley notes (page 205): "We caution the reader
- 15 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007