Appeal No. 95-3380
Application 08/109,572
OPINION
Essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants in the
Brief, we reverse the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 33 to 46 on appeal.
In the statement of the rejection at page 3 of the Answer
the examiner recognizes that the depth value of each pixel in the
line segment of Heckel is compared with a depth value stored in a
depth buffer to determine whether or not the pixel is to be
displayed on the screen. The examiner’s position recognizes that
Heckel does not specifically disclose comparing the maximum depth
value of all the pixels within a block to determine the
visibility of the entire block in a single comparison.
The examiner’s reasoning continues by apparently relying
upon the teaching at col. 10, lines 31 to 39 that it would have
been obvious to the artisan within Heckel’s teachings and
suggestions at this location to have performed the operation in
the manner that the examiner recognizes was not specifically
taught in Heckel. Although we appreciate the examiner’s
reasoning here at this portion of the Answer as well as the
example and recognition at pages 5 through 7 of the Answer that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007