Appeal 2007-0700
Application 09/159,509
Patent 5,559,995
(A) Appellants amended rejected independent claim 1 to add
the requirement of “first, second and third polygon representations of
respective first, second and third virtual objects”;
(B) Appellants amended rejected independent claim 1 to add
the requirement of “selecting means, coupled to said receiving means,
for selecting a first edge of said first virtual object and for selecting a
second edge of said second virtual object”; and
(C) Appellants amended rejected independent claim 1 to add
the requirement of “a grouped object comprising said first and second
virtual objects joined at an intersection of the first and second
edges, the grouped object represented by at least one of a
three-dimensional and rotatable wireframe object and a
three-dimensional and rotatable sweep polygon”.
Amended application claim 1 ultimately became patent claim 1.
38. Additionally, the Examiner based the rejection of claims 10-46,
48-55, 58-68, 84-94, 97-104, and 106-108 on the grounds that when faced in
the original application with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (or in the
alternative 35 U.S.C. § 103) over Wexelblat and a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Wexelblat and Richburg, Appellants made significant
arguments with respect to amended claim 1 (and claim 7) (Supplemental
Answer 5:5-11). (See also the Finding of Fact 27 supra with respect to
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim limitation (C).)
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013