Appeal No. 1997-2406
Application 08/170,651
other of the principal axes of a pixel array. Appellant points out that Vreeswijk does not
mention that the Figure 4B2 column R pattern is useful for such artifact reduction. Further,
Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer rendering of 3D images
represented by primitives would not look to Vreeswijk’s HDTV art for pixel subsampling
patterns. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not demonstrated any basis for such
person to look to eliminate staircase artifacts produced by edges nearly aligned with a principal
axis of the pixel array by adjusting the subsampling pattern of Fuchs or Cook.
The Federal Circuit states that “[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007