Appeal No. 96-3254
Application 07/991,019
In the instant case, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, “extracting a group of concentric spherical isosurfaces
containing sampling points positioned in equal intervals along a viewing ray originating from a viewing
point.”
The examiner relies on the teaching of Foley, regarding “marching-cubes algorithm,” at page
1035 thereof, for the extraction of surfaces “at equal intervals,” explaining that the equal dimensions of
each cube means that the surfaces extracted from within the cubes are at equal intervals as measured
relative to the precision of the grid containing the cubes [answer-page 3]. We are not convinced by the
examiner’s rationale that Foley describes the extraction of a group of surfaces containing sampling
points positioned in “equal intervals” along a viewing ray, as claimed. Just because cubes may have
equal dimensions, or outside surfaces, we are not convinced that this would lead to surfaces extracted
from within those cubes being at “equal intervals” relative to the precision of the grid, as the examiner
argues. It would appear to us that surfaces extracted from within the cubes may be of varying
dimensions and need not be along any particular viewing ray. Contrary to what the examiner appears
to be contending, the “surfaces” extracted from within an object are not, necessarily, the surface, or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007