Appeal No.95-5026
Application 07/923,668
shared vertex to a display means when said shared vertex is
identified as recited in Appellants’ claim 1 or the corresponding
methods steps as recited in Appellants' claim 13.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of modifying
Foley and Einkauf to provide an apparatus or method for reducing
redundant matrix transformations of shared polygon vertex data as
recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 13. The Federal Circuit
states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified
in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). "Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in
view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor." Para-
Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L.
Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
On pages 18-24 of the brief, Appellants argue that the
remaining claims, claims 2 through 12 and 14 through 22
distinguish over Foley and Einkauf for the same reasons as argued
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007