Appeal No. 1999-0466
Application 08/530,617
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to claims 1 and 2 which stand or fall
together, the examiner cites Wingine as teaching the use of
two memory controllers where one memory controller gains
access to a memory port controlled by a second memory
controller. The examiner cites Kelleher as teaching the
allocation of video memory between system memory and graphics
memory and accessing the video memory as system memory through
the graphics controller. The examiner indicates that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to combine the teachings of
Wingine and Kelleher to permit efficient use of the video
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007