Appeal No. 95-4172 Page 3
Application 08/040,698
in memory. The examiner concedes, however, that Agarwal does
not teach the multibanking limitation of the claims.
According to the examiner, Schumacher teaches multibank
high resolution displays, apparently with reference to bit
planes D0/ and D1. (Paper 14 at 4.)
DISCUSSION
The rejection falters on the grounds of claim
interpretation. Appellants argue that their claims are
governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112[6]. The examiner responds that
the specification does not mention a multibank high
resolution [display] including both multiple banks
and multiple planes as Appellant[s] argu[e]. One of
ordinary skill in the art can interpret[] the term
"bank" as a location for storing information, not
necessarily including multiple banks and multiple
planes.
(Paper 14 at 6.) Even if this were true, it would be the
basis for an indefiniteness rejection, In re Dossel, 115 F.3d
942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which should
not be confused with an obviousness rejection. Indefiniteness
is not a license to ignore a limitation. In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). In any
case, the specification states,
that high resolution graphics displays require
multiple banks of memory to be utilized and it is an
important feature of the present invention that a
logical video buffer is provided which includes
multibank management capability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007