Appeal No. 2006-1820
Application No. 08/889,440
claimed? Where, exactly, does the examiner find “a particle motion computing unit,” as
claimed? Where, exactly, in Ohira, does the examiner find the claimed functions of the kinetic
condition setting unit and the particle motion computing unit? The examiner does not say.
Further, we again ponder the question as to why the references to Kinema/SIM, Reeves
and Cohen are applied to claims, such as claim 1, which do not recite anything about
“animation” since these secondary references are allegedly applied for the animation limitation.
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, and 22-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Ohira in view of either one of Kinema/SIM or Reeves of Cohen.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first or second
paragraphs, and we have not sustained any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007