Appeal 2007-1203
Application 10/420,140
claimed “vector normal to a viewing surface”), as shown in FIG. 5, and described
as follows:
In other words, as FIG. 5 indicates, even when the sizes of the normal
vectors N at the individual vertices are equal to one another, their Z
components vary depending upon the angle formed by the planar
surface of the polygon and the direction of the line-of-sight, and the
closer the angle formed by the planar surface of the polygon and the
direction of the line-of-sight becomes to 90°, the larger the Z
component of the unit normal vector becomes [emphasis added].
(Shinohara, col. 9, ll. 15-23).
We acknowledge that Shinohara’s transparency function (see col. 7, l. 44) is
different from the exemplary transparency function described by Appellant in the
Specification.1 Nevertheless, we note that the broad language of the claim merely
requires “modulating a transparency of an image of the object as a function of the
angle of incidence” (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, we note that the Z
component (Nz) of the unit normal vector at each vertex is incorporated as a
variable in Shinohara’s transparency function (col. 7, l. 44, see also FIG. 5).
Because Shinohara discloses the magnitude of the Z components (i.e., Nz as shown
in FIG. 5) depends upon (i.e., is a function of) 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., corresponding to the recited “vector normal to a viewing surface”), we find
that Shinohara discloses all that is claimed. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
1 See Specification, p. 5, ll. 14-15, i.e., “For example, a cosine function applied to
an angle of incidence of zero at cube face 200 yields a modulating factor of one.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013