Appeal No. 96-2022
Application No. 08/132,943
6. As noted above, appellants’ arguments are not specifically
directed to the broader language of representative claim 6.
As discussed above, the examiner’s analysis of claim 6
in combination with the teachings of Masuda and Foley is
considered sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the
obviousness of claim 6. Masuda [Figure 13] and Foley [Figure
12.19] show a solid object made up of lines in three-
dimensional space. They also both teach three-dimensional
polyhedrons comprising a cell [Foley] or a primitive [Masuda].
Both references also teach the construction of Boolean
equations to form the candidate cells or primitives necessary
to create the solid model.
Since the examiner has established a prima facie case
for the obviousness of independent claim 6, and since
appellants have offered no persuasive arguments that the
rejection of claim 6 is in error, we sustain the rejection of
claim 6. Since claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we sustain
the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as proposed
by the examiner.
Independent claims 1 and 2, however, do recite
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007