Appeal No. 1999-2698
Application 08/560,108
prestored in a computer spatial model of the object space . .
. ." We agree with Appellant that this is not taught or
suggested by Bajura, and, as specifically discussed above,
find that it is not disclosed even by those sections of Bajura
cited by the Examiner.
We find that Bajura and Deering are directed to disparate
teachings which address different problems and find no reason
or suggestion in either prior art reference to enable their
combination in this obviousness analysis. Furthermore, there
is no objective teaching in either Bajura or Deering that
would lead one of ordinary skill in this art to combine the
references as proposed by the Examiner.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 4-7, 9, 13, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bajura and Deering.
In addition, we will not sustain the following
rejections:
Claims 2-3, 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bajura in view of Deering
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007