Appeal No. 2002-1375
Application No. 09/353,948
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the examiner must show the invention as claimed, and the
examiner has not met that burden. (See brief at pages 6-7.) The examiner maintains
that Nitta teaches the claimed invention and that the non-realistic animated figures
(dolls and caricature) portray conferees which are not real people but only
representations of them. (See answer at pages 5-6.) The examiner maintains that this
reads on appellants’ linear frame representation in accordance with appellants’
description in the specification at page 5 of using stick figure representations of objects.
(See answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. From our review
of the teachings of Nitta, the stored animated dolls or characters are not expressly
disclosed or illustrated as stick figures or linear frame representations. While we agree
with the examiner’s presumed view that these animated dolls or characters could be
stick figures or linear frame representations, we cannot reach the conclusion that they
are necessarily or inherently stick figures or linear frame representations. Appellants
argue throughout the brief and reply brief that the examiner has not specifically
identified that Nitta teaches animating one or more linear frame representations
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007