Appeal No. 2002-1491
Application 08/845,526
c1) using the plurality of NURBS control points as inputs to the
tri-linear interpolator; and
c2) evaluating the NURBS control points to obtain each of the
plurality of Bezier control points;
d) generating a plurality of points on a curve or surface, wherein the curve or
surface is defined by the Bezier model, using the graphics rendering pipeline; and
e) rendering the curve or surface defined by the NURBS model using the
plurality of points and using the graphics rendering pipeline such that the curve or
surface is rendered without first converting the NURBS model to a polygon mesh.
Discussion
A. The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 13-15 for
Obviousness over Jia, Gharachorloo, Luken, and Schulmeiss
At the outset, it is noted that in the Argument section of the appellant’s brief, aside from
simply identifying the patentability of claims 13, 14, and 15 as an issue, the appellant nowhere
discusses claims 13, 14, and 15 in relation to the prior art references applied by the examiner to
show any patentable distinction therefrom. We decline to play the role of counsel for the
appellant by trying to see if some of the arguments made with respect to other claims might have
equal applicability in the context of claims 13, 14 and 15. The rejection of claims 13, 14 and 15
will be sustained because the appellant has not shown error with respect to these claims.
Claims 2, 6, and 8 each depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and thus
include all the features of claim 1. These claims are about displaying 3D graphics on a display
by receiving as input a NURBS defined curve or surface and by using a graphics rendering
pipeline without converting the NURBS defined curve or surface to a polygon mesh.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007