Appeal No. 1998-0429
Application No. 08/537,187
command block in a graphics processing environment. While we agree that this
distinction concerns the disclosed invention, the language of the claimed invention is what
we must evaluate with respect to the rejection. As pointed out by our reviewing court, we
must first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appellants argue that INTEL only allows one command block to execute at a time.
(See brief at page 5.) We agree, but note that the language of claim 6 does not require
more than one command block to be processed at a time. The use of the alternative
language “one or more” is met by “one.” Furthermore, in light of the examiner’s line of
reasoning using a FIFO for more than one would also meet the alternative language of
claim 6. Appellants have not addressed the combination of the teachings in the argument.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the invention does not require the use of an attention flag
because of the automatic processing of the next command block. (See brief at page 5.)
We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons above. Furthermore, appellants
do not state the basis in the language of claim 6 upon which this argument is supported.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007