Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
principle and since Appel teaches this relationship as well,
we do not see the patentable distinction of storing
orientation data based on three-dimensional space angle
information. In our view, the Haney system modified to
operate in three dimensions would obviously have prestored the
data based on unique space angles within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. These unique space angles must include all the
permutations of angular movement within each of the three
orthogonal planes within the resolution desired by the user.
Since it appears to us that claims 12, 15 and 21 simply recite
an obvious relationship between three-dimensional angle data,
we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 15 and 21.
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 17, appellant
argues that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
the claimed linking of three-dimensional drawings section by
section. We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument, and we
again agree with the examiner’s position. Haney clearly
teaches that an animated character is generated by linking
prestored two-dimensional images of adjacent image sections.
Haney always
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007