Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
corresponding to delivery mechanisms. The examiner’s
responsive arguments to appellants’ position in the brief at
pages 7 and 8 of the answer also do not convince us of the
obviousness of the subject matter of the graphics processor
clause of claim 14. The examiner does not argue and there is
no apparent teaching or showing in Hanson, for example, of a
graphics memory partitioned with an active invisible page and
an inactive visible page utilized in the manner recited in
this graphic processor clause of claim 14. Therefore, we
remain unconvinced of the obviousness of the subject matter of
independent claim 14 on appeal as a whole without more prior
art evidence than that provided.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007