Appeal No. 95-3380
Application 08/109,572
there is an apparent logical converse between the express
teachings of Heckel and those associated with the disclosed and
claimed operation, the examiner’s reasoning appears to be
incomplete and misplaced.
Aside from the examiner’s own reasoning and an attempt to
rely upon a teaching at the above noted location in Heckel, the
examiner has not come to grips with the argument made by
appellants between pages 8 and 10 of the Brief that Heckel
expressly teaches comparing the depth information for each pixel
within each identifiable line segment to be displayed with the
depth information for the corresponding pixel in a depth buffer.
Although we would not go so far as to agree with appellants’
assertion that Heckel teaches away from the claimed invention, it
is clear that Heckel does operate solely upon the above stated
principle that a pixel-by-pixel comparison occurs of each pixel
in a line segment of a scene to be displayed with each
corresponding pixel within the depth information stored in a
depth buffer of information already displayed. This is
specifically taught in the summary of the invention beginning at
col. 3, line 59 in at least three locations through col. 6, line
12 and again in the body of Heckel’s disclosure beginning at col.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007