Appeal No. 1999-2607
Application 08/826,618
finds that the notebook of figure 9 of Lynch is a two-dimensional
metaphor of the three-dimensional notebook object 160 in figure 3
and, thus, Lynch teaches a "two-dimensional image of said virtual
object." The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify the two-dimensional images in Linnett to be a "two-
dimensional image of said virtual object," as claimed.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a complete statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 11) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue (Br5) that the key elements of the
invention are: (1) the storage for each of a plurality of
virtual three-dimensional objects, an associated two-dimensional
image of the object which may be selectively activated to
function as a two-dimensional user interactive interface; while
(2) most significantly, the user may at the same time continue
his interactive navigation through the three-dimensional
workspace away from the selected virtual object. These
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007