Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
We have considered the merits of the examiner’s rejection
and we will reverse the rejection of claims 15 through 34 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, based on the evidence
provided by Kantor and Simone, it is our view that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner relies on Simone to provide the details of
the “Autodesk Animator” system which Kantor indicates had been
used in a court proceeding environment prior to the effective
filing date of the instant application. In particular, the
examiner uses Simone’s teaching of a “pathing” animation as a
teaching of “determining a plurality of locations,
orientations, and forms of said objects in a temporal sequence
corresponding to said description of said objects for at least
two different times,” as recited specifically in independent
claim 15 but also required, in various forms, by independent
claims 17 and 27. The examiner also contends that Simone’s
disclosure of a “clocked path” suggests the orientation of
objects in a temporal sequence corresponding to a description
of the objects for at least two different times. The examiner
still further points out that Simone’s disclosure of a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007