Appeal No. 2002-1491
Application 08/845,526
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 9 and 12 is reversed.
D. The Rejection of Claims 16, 18 and 19 for
Obviousness over Luken, Jia, and Schulmeiss
Claim 18 depends from independent claim 16, and claim 19 depends from claim 18.
Claim 16 recites a method for a graphics rendering pipeline, which includes the step of
generating a plurality of surface partials from the surface by loading inputs of a tri-linear
interpolator included in a graphics rendering pipeline with a plurality of Bezier control points
defining the surface.
The examiner cites to the Luken reference for its inherent disclosure of the use of tri-
linear interpolators. The examiner notes that the Luken reference implements a de Casteljau
process which performs a linear interpolation between the components (x,y,z) of the NURBS
control points. The examiner recognizes, however, that in the disclosed system of the Luken
reference, Bezier control points are not inputs to the tri-linear interpolators as is required by
claim 16.
For this rejection, the examiner’s rationale parallels that which he used for the rejection
of claims 9 and 12. He notes that according to the Jia reference the Bezier curve is a special case
of a B-spline curve, and he notes that according to the Schulmeiss reference, the de Casteljau
algorithm can be used to calculate Bezier control points. The rationale is insufficient to support
the rejection. As we discussed above in the context of the rejection of claims 9 and 12, the Jia
reference has nothing to do with the “rendering” of any computer graphics. Instead, it is
directed to computerized numerical control of the motions of a machine tool. The examiner has
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007