Appeal No. 96-2022
Application No. 08/132,943
suggest the obviousness of this claimed feature.
Specifically, the solid models shown in Masuda and
Foley could be generated from data provided in a number of
ways. Since appellants’ specification admits that solid
models were known to be generated using three orthographic
views, it would have been obvious to the artisan to obtain the
solid model data shown in Masuda or Foley by entering three
orthographic views into Masuda’s system or Foley’s system as
known from the admitted prior art. Therefore, appellants’
argument that neither Masuda nor Foley specifically discloses
the use of three orthographic views is not persuasive of the
nonobviousness of this feature as recited in claim 6.
Appellants next point to independent claim 1 and argue
that neither Masuda nor Foley teaches the generation of non-
conflicting cell combinations for the solid model. While a
conflict in the boundary relations between cells is clearly
recited in independent claims 1 and 2, we find no similar
recitation in representative claim 6. Thus, even though
appellants’ argument would be relevant to the nonobviousness
of the invention recited in claims 1 and 2, it is not
commensurate in scope with the invention as recited in claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007