Appeal No. 1996-2027
Application 07/965,079
length of their respective target vectors," and that Foley’s Hermite curves are not generated by
temporary setting of control points as required by representative claim 5. We also agree with
appellants’ argument (Brief, page 10) that the generation of these Hermite curves is not necessary or
employed in Foley for the purpose recited in claim 5 of minimizing distances between an input series of
points and a free-form curve. Our review of the text of the Foley reference from pages 483 to 488,
which describes Hermite curves, and from pages 507 to 510 which describes curve fitting, reveals
nothing which would have fairly taught or suggested the recited features of appellants’ claim 5. We also
agree with appellants that "Foley also does not show the drawing of perpendiculars from the input
series of points to the free-form curve in order to find the parameter relating to the intersections with the
free-form curve" (Brief, page 11). We cannot agree with the examiner (Answer, page 9) that the use of
the word "closer" at page 508 of Foley means that perpendiculars are being drawn or that a distance is
being minimized as set forth by the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Group I (claims 5 and 9) on appeal.
We turn next to appellants’ argument with respect to Group II (Brief, pages 10 to 11), that
Foley fails to teach or suggest finding the shortest distance from input points to a reference patch or
generating a second patch on the basis of internal control points as recited in representative claim 6 on
appeal. We are in agreement with appellants. Our review of pages 507 to 510 of Foley, upon which
the examiner relies to show these features, fails to reveal any teaching or suggestion of the specific
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007