Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
do not agree with appellant. The prestored images in Haney
are based on different stances and positions [column 2, lines
39-42]. Thus, each prestored image differs from other
prestored images in an orientation based on stance and
position. Since each prestored image must have its own
address, Haney teaches that there is a unique address which
contains the prestored image for a measured and calculated
amount of movement in two dimensions. When this teaching is
extended to three dimensions as suggested by Appel or Frazer,
there would be a unique address for each prestored image as it
moves in three dimensions. Since the movement in three-
dimensional space is uniquely identified by a
space angle, it would have been obvious to the artisan that
the
unique vector addressing of Haney would be replaced by a
comparable three-dimensional unique space angle addressing.
The arguments just considered essentially cover all
the arguments made by appellant with respect to the rejection
of independent claims 11 and 16. As noted above, we are not
persuaded by any of these arguments that the rejection of
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007