Appeal No. 2002-1313 Page 4
Application No. 09/282,590
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner makes the following
assertions.
Seidl discloses a method of modifying representations of three
dimensional objects comprising the steps of displaying a three
dimensional representation of an object (curve in figures 12-19, surface in
figures 20-27 and shape in figures 28-33), displaying a three dimensional
representation of a modifier in association with the representation of the
object, the representation of the object having a shape defined by one or
more modifier parameters, (box in figures 12-33), the representation of
the modifier having a shape indicating an approximate appearance of the
object (figures 2425), changing the three dimensional representation of
the modifier and applying the modifier to the object (column 2, lines 55-
61), and displaying a second three dimensional representation of the
object (the modified curves in figures 13-19, modified surfaces in figures
21-27, and modified shape in figure 33).
(Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "in Seidl, the alterations are made by
a user interacting with an alteration tool (the bounding box). In [the claims], the
alteration is made by applying a modifier to an object. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, “the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007