Appeal No. 95-3380
Application 08/109,572
10 through the middle of col. 11 describing the flow chart
operation of Fig. 6.
The “one comparison only” operation in independent method
claim 33 and its corresponding apparatus claim 40 distinguishes
over the individual pixel-by-pixel comparison upon which Heckel
is based. The claimed invention not only requires the storage of
a maximum depth value for a block of pixels actually being
displayed as a first object, but also the computation of a single
depth value (disclosed as a minimum depth value) for a second
object to be displayed, thus permitting the subsequent single
step comparison at the end of independent claims 33 and 40 on
appeal.
Although we agree with the examiner’s basic approach to the
rejection that Heckel may have been modified or could have been
modified so that the artisan would have arrived at the presently
claimed invention, we do not agree that the present claimed
invention would have been obvious to the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 on the basis of Heckel and the examiner’s reasoning alone.
Clearly, something more, such as additional prior art, would have
been necessary to convince us that the presently claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to the artisan.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007