Appeal No. 1999-1788
Application No. 08/533,939
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
6, 10, and 14.
The examiner states (Answer, page 4) that Gough does not
"specifically detail several preselected simplified shape
models exactly as claimed. However, it would have been
obvious . . . to specify any shape since Gough et al. taught a
polygon which encompasses many kind [sic, kinds] of shapes
including the claimed preselected simplified shapes."
Further, in the response to appellant's argument, the examiner
asserts (Answer, page 4) that:
"[S]electing a shape among plural shapes" could be
any shape one could think of or a shape available in
a designer's tool or . . . as in Gough's system if
the device editor allowed the user to specify a
geometry/ shape of a device then it is clearly
obvious . . . to select a shape from any source."
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 10 and 11) that Gough
discloses that the user may define shapes, but not that the
user may select a shape from among preselected simplified
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007