Appeal No. 2005-0490
Application 09/399,065
the briefs. We agree with appellants that the InfoPyramid data
disclosed by Li is not described as being representative of model
data comprising geometry data. The invention of claim 1 requires
a request for the streaming of geometry data. There is no
indication in Li that any of the multi-media content transmitted
therein constitutes geometry data. As noted by appellants,
geometry data refers to object surfaces represented by items such
as splines and triangle tessellation. Li makes no mention of
such geometry data.
Since independent claims 12, 23, 26 and 29 contain
recitations similar to independent claim 1, we also do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of any of these independent
claims. Since none of the independent claims are anticipated by
Li, it follows that none of the dependent claims can be
anticipated by Li. With respect to the rejection of dependent
claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, this rejection fails
because of the deficiencies of Li discussed above.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007