Appeal No. 1999-1845
Application No. 08/659,132
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 appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to each of independent claims 1, 5, 8 and
10, the examiner finds that Deering teaches the claimed
invention except for the recitation of forcing the blending
parameter to a predetermined value. Hardy is cited to teach a
blend parameter (opacity) which is set to a predetermined
value. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to configure Deering’s system to include the blend
parameter in pixel attributes to yield a visual sense of
transparency [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
teach or suggest that the exact same memory locations are used
to store both depth and color data so that the total memory
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007