Ex Parte Stinson et al - Page 7



                Appeal No. 2006-1429                                                                              
                Application No. 10/437,995                                                                        


                                    Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102                                   
                       Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, that Eddie Bauer does not teach                  
                “mapping” the surface material sample onto a “multidimensional representation of an               
                object.”  Appellants assert that Eddie Bauer merely discloses images of actual objects.           
                       The examiner responds, stating, “Eddie Bauer teaches a photograph.  A                      
                photograph is a two-dimensional image of an object.”                                              
                       We concur with the examiner.  Claim 11 is dependent upon claim 1 and adds the              
                limitation that the surface material samples are mapped onto a multidimensional                   
                representation of an object.  As discussed supra, Eddie Bauer teaches a web page which            
                presents pictures of objects for sale (clothing). On one page 52, Eddie Bauer shows a web         
                page with the caption “click below to change product color.”  Thus, by selecting a color          
                the selected object will be displayed in the newly selected color.  As the object is a            
                multidimensional object, the picture displayed is a representation of a multidimensional          
                object.  One skilled in the art would recognize that to display the selected color on the         
                picture of the object, involves mapping the selected color (surface material sample) onto         
                the representation of the selected object.  According, we find ample evidence to support          
                the examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                                       

                            Rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                        
                       Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, “dependent claims 3-5 and 14 through 16          
                are patentable at least because of they depend from independent claims 1 and 12.”                 
                Appellants’ present no other argument directed to claims 3, 4, 14 and 15.                         
                       As discussed supra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12.                 
                Similarly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.          
                § 103.                                                                                            
                       Appellants argue, on page 8 of the brief, that the examiner did not “consider the          
                corresponding structure in Applicant’s specification for carrying our the claimed function        



                                                        7                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007