Appeal No. 95-2572 Page 4
Application 08/157,451
find that the claimed high-level graphics processor means
corresponds to the picture processor, which converts high-level
display lists into control and pixel data suitable for use by the
display controller. The control processor may further process to
control and pixel data to produce a secondary pixel image and
incorporate this image into a secondary display list. (2:55-
3:5.) This secondary display list may then be sent to the
picture processor for further minimal processing before it is
sent to the display controller. (3:6-24.) It might be possible
to construe the control processor and routing circuit as the low-
level graphics processor means. However, it is not clear to us
on the record developed thus far that our reading of Dalrymple
would provide a basis for entering a new ground of rejection
based on our construction.
The examiner relies on Feldman for the teaching of run-
length encoding. Although we agree with the examiner that run-
length encoding is relevant to the problem facing the inventor,
Feldman does not cure the deficiencies in the examiner's reading
of Dalrymple. The record does not suggest, and we do not find,
that any combination of the other references cures the
deficiencies in the examiner's reading of Dalrymple.
The combination of Dalrymple and Feldman would not have
rendered claim 15 obvious for the reasons the examiner proposes.
The remaining claims depend from claim 15 and their rejections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007