Appeal No. 1999-1602
Application No. 08/776,957
Claim 7 further recites, “wherein the virtual space structured data includes data
indicating that the entrance hall area is disposed at one side of a polygon, and the
objects are disposed at other respective sides of the polygon.” Contrary to appellants’
indication (Brief at 10), the claim does not require any “polygonal space,” such as a
“polygonal room.” There is nothing in the claim to require that the “polygon” be part of
the virtual space. We decline appellants’ invitation to read disclosed limitations into the
claim.
We now turn to consider the teachings of the reference in controversy. O’Neill
describes, particularly at columns 3 and 4, presenting a three-dimensional view of
information, as that stored in a database, whereby the user can move about within the
file, in a virtual sense, and retain a sense of location within the file. By means of an
input device, as shown in Figure 4, the user may navigate forward or back (DOLLY), or
shift up, down, left, or right (PAN).
Although other examples of databases are described by O’Neill, Figure 4 depicts
the form of an appointment book having mastheads 21 and information surfaces 20
placed in a perspective row arrangement. We consider the mastheads and information
surfaces to be “objects” within the meaning of the instant claims; further, appellants do
not argue to the contrary.
We agree with the examiner that the argued terms of claim 7 are broad enough
to read on the disclosure of O’Neill. We also note that, in view of the language of claim
7, appellants rely for patentability on what the data “indicates” -- i.e., how one is to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007