Appeal No. 1999-1845
Application No. 08/659,132
the depth values by overwriting one with the other. The
applied prior art does not teach this feature of the claimed
invention.
Although independent claim 10 does not have the
limitation quoted above, appellant argues that the applied
prior art does not teach the four functionally distinct units
operating asynchronously and in a pipelined fashion as recited
in claim 10. The examiner responds that Deering teaches
polygon processors which perform different functions in a
pipeline fashion.
We agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to
consider every limitation of independent claim 10. We can
find no teaching or suggestion on this record for the claimed
recitation of asynchronous operation of the four functionally
distinct processing units or that the units are mutually
interconnected to provide a pipelined MIMD processing
architecture as claimed. The examiner’s failure to address
these features of claim 10 results in the failure to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of any of the independent claims on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007