Appeal No. 2004-1572
Application No. 09/370,104
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe), “A Trigonal Prism-Based Method for Hair Image Generation,”
IEEE, January 1992, pp. 47-53.
Van Gelder et al. (Van Gelder), “An Interactive Fur Modeling Technique,” Computer Science
Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, pp. 1-6.
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1-8, 17-21, 29-33, 37-38, and 43-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Watanabe.
Claims (9-11, 34-36, and 49-51) and (12-16, 22-28, 39-42, and 52-61) stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Van Gelder.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and to the Examiner’s
Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 29, 2003. Appellants filed a reply brief on
February 6, 2004. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on December 3, 2003.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007