Appeal No. 1999-0409
Application 08/425,741
notes that “[c]haracter bitmaps provided by the Windows GUI
are mostly packed, that is, all bits per source byte are used
during the bitblt” [specification, pages 2-3]. Thus, the
admitted prior art clearly defines the difference between
sparse data and packed data.
There is no question that the admitted prior art
teaches a bitblt operation being performed on a sparse
monochrome bitmap [off-screen memory 23 of admitted prior art
Figure 2]. The examiner’s attempt to redefine this sparse
monochrome bitmap memory as a packed form of text character
memory has to fail as it contradicts what is clearly taught by
the admitted prior art. Since the admitted prior art does not
teach a bitblt operation on each bit of the packed form of
text character as recited in independent claim 1, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
1 or of claims 3-7 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 2, we agree with
appellants that the bitblt steps set forth in claim 2 are not
taught or suggested by Morse for the reasons noted by
appellants in the briefs. Therefore, we do not sustain the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007