Appeal 2007-0563
Application 10/001,940
1 Montgomery teach a color value stored for each pixel in the display device is
2 not persuasive with respect to claims 11-36 and 38.
3 The rest of Applicants’ arguments are with respect to the combination
4 of Iwamura and Montgomery. Applicants argue that 1) there is no
5 motivation to combine Iwamura with Montgomery and that 2) the z-
6 buffering method used in Iwamura is not compatible with the item buffering
7 method of Montgomery (FF 13-15).
8 Applicants argue that the Examiner has provided no basis, e.g., no
9 teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) cited in either Montgomery or
10 Iwamura to combine their teachings. The Supreme Court, in KSR cautioned
11 against applying the TSM test as a rigid rule limiting the obviousness
12 inquiry (Id.). A flexible approach should be taken.
13 In any event, here the Examiner did provide stated reasons for
14 combining (FFs 11 and 12) and those statements are supported by the prior
15 art of record. One of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, recognized
16 the problem associated with traversing an entire list of graphic objects in
17 response to a pick. The process is slow and inefficient, especially when the
18 list contains many objects. One of ordinary skill in the art knew at the time
19 of the invention that item buffering may be used to solve the traversing
20 problem in both two dimensional and three dimensional systems (FFs 19-
21 25). The record sufficiently supports the Examiner’s reasoning for
22 combining Iwamura and Montgomery, and Applicants have failed to
23 sufficiently demonstrate a flaw in that reasoning.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013