Appeal 2007-1203
Application 10/420,140
angle created by the intersection of a viewing surface normal vector with a planar
surface, as claimed. Appellant concludes that Shinohara’s approach to determining
transparency is “strikingly different” than the approach taken by Appellant (Br. 10-
11).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Appellant is arguing
limitations that are not claimed (Answer 8). The Examiner points out that claim 1
merely recites an angle of incidence at the planar surface, i.e., broadly reading on
an angle of incidence at any point on the planar surface (Answer 10). The
Examiner broadly equates a normal vector at a vertex along the planar surface of a
general polygon with a normal vector at each pixel of a planar surface of the
polygon (Answer 9). The Examiner finds that Shinohara’s transparency output
[i.e., “α out,” see col. 7, l. 44] is a function of Nz [i.e., where Nz is disclosed by
Shinohara as corresponding to the Z (depth) component of N, the unit normal
vector at each vertex of the polygon, as shown in Fig. 5] (Answer 11).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we find the language of
the claim broadly but reasonably reads on Shinohara in the manner argued by the
Examiner. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that an angle of incidence at
the planar surface (as recited in the claim) broadly but reasonably reads on an
angle of incidence at any point on the planar surface (Answer 10). As pointed out
by the Examiner, Shinohara discloses that the magnitude of the Z (depth)
component (i.e., Nz as shown in FIG. 5) depends upon the angle (i.e., angle of
incidence) formed by the planar surface of the polygon and the direction of the
line-of-sight (i.e., where the direction of the line-of-sight corresponds to the instant
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013