Appeal No. 2005-0490
Application 09/399,065
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider
the rejection against claims 1 and 8 as representative of all the
claims on appeal.
The examiner has indicated how he reads the invention of
claim 1 on the disclosure of Li [answer, page 3]. Appellants
argue that Li fails to disclose a system for adaptively
requesting model data which comprises geometry data as claimed.
Appellants argue that Li only teaches the adjustment of the
fidelity of different transmitted data items. Appellants assert
that video data, image data, audio data and textual data of
different fidelity, as taught by Li, does not teach or suggest
model data comprising geometric data as claimed [brief, pages 4-
6]. The examiner responds that the InfoPyramid data of Li meets
the claimed model data comprising geometric data [answer, page
17]. Appellants respond that the InfoPyramid data of Li does not
anticipate the model data comprising geometry data, and that the
examiner has failed to address appellants’ arguments in the brief
[reply brief, pages 1-2].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 for the reasons argued by appellants in
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007