Appeal No. 2006-2103
Application No. 09/780,817
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984);
W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the Examiner attempts
to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Fisher. In particular, the Examiner
(Answer, pages 3-5) points to the disclosure at column 3, lines 14-40, column 4, lines 62-65,
and column 5, lines 10-50 of Fisher which describes the illustrations in Fisher’s Figures 3-5.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how each
of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Fisher so as to establish a case of
anticipation. In particular, Appellant contends (Brief, page 10; Reply Brief, pages 5-7) that,
in contrast to the claimed invention, Fisher provides no disclosure of the intersecting of
object node bounding volumes with the view frustum of a graphical client to determine a set
of visible and undefined object nodes.
After reviewing the Fisher reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in
general agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs. While we don’t
necessarily disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation (Answer, page 8) of the “pre-
download stage” feature suggested at column 5, lines 25-60 of Fisher, we fail to see how this
disclosure would satisfy the specific VU object node set determination operation set forth in
each of the appealed independent claims. Even assuming, arguendo, that Fisher makes a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007