Appeal No. 1997-2406
Application 08/170,651
axis of the pixel. However, we fail to find where the admitted prior art teaches or suggests
obtaining sample points based upon the class of image feature in a manner that avoids artifacts
produced by image edges nearly aligned with one or the other of the principal axes of a pixel
array. We also agree with the Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer
rendering of 3D images represented by primitives would not look to Vreeswijk’s HDTV art for
pixel subsampling patterns. The Examiner has failed to show where the Vreeswijk reference
suggests the desirability of the modification over the problems encountered in the admitted prior
art.
With respect to claim 18, appellant argues that antialias filtering based on oversampling
of a pixel and carrying out of oversampling in dependence on edge orientation of the primitives
is not taught or suggested by the references for the same reasons as in arguments for claim 1.
We note that claim 18 recites "carrying out the oversampling in dependence upon edge
orientation of the specific one or more primitives." Like claim 1, the claim requires oversampling
by determination of sample points in dependence upon a class of image feature, e.g., edge
orientation. We find, as in claim 1, that neither the admitted prior art nor the Vreeswijk
reference teaches or suggests this limitation.
Upon review of the admitted prior art and the Vreeswijk reference, we fail to find any
teaching or suggestion to carry out oversampling by determining the locations of sampling points
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007