Appeal No. 1999-1602
Application No. 08/776,957
We therefore find that O’Neill’s disclosure meets the claim 7 language regarding
the “indications” argued to be missing from the prior art.
We also find that O’Neill’s Figure 4 indicates “a linear corridor area connected to
the entrance hall area,” as required by instant claim 9. That is, the display indicates that
at least the area that is past the “May 3” masthead, from the viewpoint of a virtual user,
is in the form of a linear corridor, with masthead and information surface objects at the
right-hand side of the corridor. We have considered appellants’ arguments to the
contrary (Brief at 12). However, in our opinion the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“entrance hall area” includes within its meaning the nearest (initial) portion of the area
indicated in Figure 4 of O’Neill, for the reasons we have previously expressed herein.
We also find, consistent with instant claim 10, that O’Neill’s Figure 4 indicates that the
objects are disposed “only at one side” (i.e., the right-hand side) of the corridor.
Since we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of representative claims 7, 9
or 10, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over O’Neill and Goh.
Each of instant claims 3 and 8 recites indication that “the entrance hall area is
disposed at a position from which the virtual user has a bird’s eye view of the inside of
the polygon and the objects.” A “birds-eye” is defined as “seen from high above or from
a distance: a bird’s eye view.” The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
Edition at 181 (1982). We agree with appellants that the disclosure of O’Neill does not
teach the noted limitations of claims 3 and 8. The view of the polygon we have
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007