Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
No. 21) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
rejection, and to the revised brief (Paper No. 27) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we note the
use of the transition phrase "consisting of" in claims 1 and
8. This phrase excludes other steps in claim 1 and other
structure or means in apparatus claim 8.
The Examiner finds that Kato discloses the claimed
subject matter except for generating a texture value for each
position by surface rendering color information based on
position values generated for each position (FR3). The
Examiner seems to find that Kato teaches generating textures
as recited in claim 1, but does not do so "by surface
rendering surface color information based on position values
generated for each position" as recited in claim 8. The
Examiner finds that Foley shows generating texture for each
position in Fig. 14.32, page 643, which is said to shown
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007