Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
images in said database corresponding to said different units
of speech” which in conjunction with independent claim 1, has
similar scope to those limitations of claim 6 addressed above.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and
3 (which depends upon claim 2).
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 35 through
37, 41 through 52, 54, 56 through 72 and 79 through 82 as
being unpatentable over Lee, Lavagetto and Terzopoulos.
On page 13 of the brief, Appellants argue that the
combination of references is improper and that Terzopoulos is
inapplicable to the claimed invention. Appellants assert that
Lavagetto is a system which makes use of animating key frames
and that Terzopoulos is a modeling system of animation and
“this combination would not be made by a person having
ordinary skill in the art.”
In determining whether prior art is properly combinable
the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS
Importers Int'l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996),
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007