Appeal No. 2000-1935
Application 08/460,937
On the other hand, because we do not agree with the
examiner's views with respect to this relationship of the
projection subject image located between the view point and the
projection plane, notwithstanding the teaching noted earlier at
the bottom of page 237 of Foley that the view plane may be
located anywhere with respect to the object, it appears to us and
appellants that the view point itself is always outside of any
truncated or limited viewing volume according to the figures and
showings of Foley relied upon by the examiner. Foley is
therefore incapable of meeting the limitation of representative
claim 1 (as well as independent claims 6, 13 and 14 as well) on
appeal that the predetermined region itself "contains the view
point." The view point in the noted figures in the portion of
Foley relied upon by the examiner appears to us and appellants to
be always located away from or in a region not a part of the
truncated viewing volume itself. Figures 6A, 6E and 7 of Kaufman
indicate the same.
As to the examiner's view that Kimura teaches this, we are
also in agreement with appellants' views that Kimura does not.
Both perspectives shown and the initial teachings and showings
associated with Figure 5 indicate that the point of view is
located away from the projection plane B according to the Figure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007