Appeal No. 1996-2027
Application 07/965,079
method of finding the shortest distance from input points to a reference patch, or of generating a second
patch, as required by representative claim 6. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of Group II (claims 6 and 7) on appeal.
Lastly, we turn to appellants’ argument with respect to Group III (Brief, pages 11 to 12), that
Foley fails to teach or suggest finding the shortest distances from input points to a second patch
designated as a transformation target or transforming the first patch to have a surface geometry of the
transformation target. We cannot agree with the examiner (Answer, page 11) that pages 508 to 510 of
Foley teaches finding the shortest distances from input points to a second patch designated as a
transformation target. At best, pages 508 to 510 of Foley generally show minimizing distances between
points. We also cannot agree with the examiner (Answer, page 12) that sole Figure 16.26 at page 743
of Foley teaches transforming the first patch to have a surface geometry of the transformation target as
required by representative claim 8. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103 of Group III (claim 8) on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 to 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007