Appeal No. 2002-1491
Application 08/845,526
Summary of the Invention portion of the Luken reference indicates that its disclosed process
produces a series of 4-sided polygons for subsequent rendering (Column 2, lines 28-31). We
decline to undertake detailed examination ourselves to determine whether the system according
to the Luken reference directly renders curves without first converting them into a polygon
mesh. The examiner’s failure to account for this feature of the rejected claims undermines the
rejection. On this record, based on the examiner’s stated rationale, the rejection of claims 20-24
cannot be sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s comment about the Luken reference, contained in the
response to arguments portion of the examiner’s Answer, note our earlier discussion on that
subject in the context of our discussion of the rejection of claims 9 and 12.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 20-24 is reversed.
F. The Rejection of Claim 25 for Obviousness
over Luken, Gharachorloo and Oha
Claim 25 depends from claim 20 and adds additional steps to the process defined by
claim 20. The Oha reference is applied to account for the additional steps added by dependent
claim 25. Thus, as applied by the examiner, the Oha reference does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection of base independent claim 20. Consequently, the rejection of claim 25 cannot be
sustained.
The rejection of claim 25 is reversed.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007