Appeal No. 2002-1313 Page 8
Application No. 09/282,590
“when a 3D object displayed on a visual display of a computer system is selected by a
user, a 3D ‘virtual box’ or ‘bounding box’ appearing on the visual display such that the
bounding box is proximal to the 3D object.” Col. 6, ll. 1-5. He fails to show, however,
that the appearance of the reference’s 3D object is not changed, however, by merely
applying the bounding box thereto. To the contrary, further interaction with the
bounding box is required. For example, “[t]o scale the 3D object, the user grabs a
corner of the bounding box and pulls.” Col. 7, ll. 52-53. In summary, “[t]he bounding
box 303 is [merely] a visual clue to the user that the 3D object has been selected.”
Col. 6, ll. 36-38. The absence of such a showing negates anticipation. Therefore, we
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1; of claim 2 and claims 4-9, which fall
therewith; of claim 10; and of claim 16 and claims 18-20, which fall therewith.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "’A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007