Appeal No. 2002-1491
Application 08/845,526
NURBS model; and (c) rendering the curve or surface using the plurality of points. In the
context of the applicant’s specification, it is reasonably clear that “render a curve or surface
directly from a NURBS model” means without first converting the curve or surface to a polygon
mesh. The recitation is also not a meaningless statement of intended use, because the specific
steps (b) and (c) in the body of the claim give life and meaning to the recitation by associating it
with specific actions in the method. The examiner’s analysis evidently has ignored that
important feature of the applicant’s claimed invention. On page 12 of the Answer, the examiner
states: “Claim 20 lays claim to a method of rendering a curve by doing a global to local
transformation, evaluating the NURBS control points using tri-linear interpolation, and rendering
the curve using the points thus created.” There is no mention of the requirement that the curve
be rendered directly from the NURBS model, i.e., without first converting the curve or surface to
a polygon mesh. In subsequent analysis on the same page of the Answer, the examiner also does
not account for that feature of the claimed invention.
The applicant in his brief on page 27 asserts that the cited prior art references do not
“directly” render NURBS models with the dedicated rendering hardware of the graphics
pipeline. The applicant then specifically discusses Gharachorloo to show that it first creates a
polygon mesh. Although the applicant does not specifically discuss Luken, the general assertion
is enough to place the examiner’s failure to account for the claimed feature at issue. It is the
examiner who must first make out a prima facie case of obviousness by an accounting of all the
claimed limitations. The examiner’s silence in this regard is a problem especially because the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007