Appeal No. 1996-2027
Application 07/965,079
agreement that claims 5 to 9 on appeal should stand or fall in three distinct groupings: Group I
consisting of claims 5 and 9; Group II consisting of claims 6 and 7; and Group III consisting of claim 8.
We are in agreement with this grouping of the claims. Accordingly, we take independent claim 5 on
appeal as being representative of Group I; we take independent claim 6 on appeal as being
representative of Group II; and we take independent claim 8 on appeal as being representative of
Group III. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied references, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellants (Brief,
pages 9 to 12) that claims 5 to 9 on appeal would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made in light of the collective teachings of Foley and Riley. For the
reasons which follow, we will not sustain the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 to 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We first turn to appellants’ argument with respect to Group I (Brief, pages 9 to 10), that Foley
fails to teach the temporary setting of control points recited in representative claim 5 on appeal. We
agree with appellants that Foley’s Hermite curves in Figure 11.14 shown at page 486 are "merely a
comparative illustration intended to demonstrate the dependence of the shape of Hermite curves on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007