Appeal No. 1998-0426
Application No. 08/307,028
only to the surface. We agree with appellant. (See brief at pages 3-6.) The examiner
rationalizes that “the ellipsoid is a sphere.” (See answer at page 4.) While we agree with
the examiner's rationalization of the similarity of the sphere and the ellipsoid, we do not
agree that a skilled artisan would have recognized them as the same. Appellant has
argued that the sphere was selected “to reduce the calculations
. . . when one is within the spheres.” (See brief at page 4.) The examiner has not set forth
a motivation for changing the ellipsoids of Gardner to spheres and to use the solid sphere
rather than merely the surface as taught by Gardner.
Appellant further argues that Gardner does not disclose a "method that models a
cloud using spheres with each sphere having a varying density of obscuring material
(corresponding to a set of parameters defining the nonuniform density and color of the
smoke or cloud)." (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant that Gardner does not
disclose "computing an equivalent translucency factor for the smoke at the pixel based
upon location of the pixel with respect to the transformed center point, the screen
coordinate radius, the set of parameters defining its nonuniform density and color, and
penetration depth through the smoke" as recited in claim 1.
Appellant generally argues that Gardner is merely concerned with modeling the
surface of an ellipsoidal surface which does not have volume or depth beyond the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007