Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
claims 11 and 16 as formulated by the examiner is in error.
Although none of the applied prior art references individually
discloses the claimed invention, we agree with the examiner
that the invention as broadly recited in claims 11 and 16
would have been obvious to the artisan when the Haney system
is extended to operate in three dimensions as suggested by
Appel or Frazar. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 16 as expressed by the examiner.
With respect to dependent claims 12, 15 and 21,
appellant argues that these claims recite how the calculated
space angle of an image section of the actor’s body can be
logically paired with a unique and easily ascertainable
address location in the computer’s memory, and that there is
no suggestion of this feature in the applied references
[brief, pages 17-18]. Despite the length of claims 15 and 21,
we construe these claims as
essentially reciting nothing more than a relationship that a
movement in three-dimensional space can be uniquely determined
by calculating angular movement through three orthogonal
planes. Since this relationship is a well-known mathematical
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007