Appeal No. 96-3254
Application 07/991,019
face, of the object itself. Therefore, we do not understand how the examiner extracts a teaching of
sampling points positioned in “equal intervals” along a viewing ray from Foley’s disclosure.
Accordingly, since the examiner relies on Foley for the teaching of the “equal intervals” aspect of the
claimed invention and has provided us with no convincing line of reasoning that Foley teaches or
suggests such a limitation, and neither Winget nor Glassner provides for the deficiency of Foley, we will
not sustain the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Moreover, the examiner cites Winget for the proposition of using isosurfaces, pointing to the
summary of the invention section of Winget, but the examiner never identifies on what portion of that
summary he relies. Then, the examiner cites Glassner for the specific use of concentric spherical
isosurfaces and concludes that it would have been obvious “to apply Winget’s isosurface volumetric to
Foley’s generation because of Glassner’s taught example” [answer-page 4]. However, the examiner
has provided no convincing rationale for making the proposed combination nor has the examiner
addressed any reason as to how or why the skilled artisan would have looked to Winget and/or
Glassner in order to modify Foley in such a manner as to provide for the extraction of a group of
concentric spherical isosurfaces containing sampling points positioned in equal intervals along a viewing
ray originating from a viewing point. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that all that the examiner contends
about the teachings of each reference is true, we remain unconvinced of any plausible reason, other than
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007