Appeal No. 1999-2818
Application No. 08/502,037
Opinion
At page 5 of the brief, appellants state that claims 1, 3-22
and 24-29 stand or fall together as a group.
We will not sustain this rejection.
With respect to claim 1, it is considered that the examiner has
not set forth a convincing suggestion or motivation for combining
the prior art. The examiner states to the effect that Peaslee,
Harris and Katsura teach advantages of graphics rendering, and
concludes that because of these teachings one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to combine this art with
Whitmer. This statement is inadequate because the examiner has
not set forth what advantages of graphics rendering he has in mind
such that we can review his position.
With respect to Figure 9 of Katsura, we note that this
reference alone discloses at column 6, lines 56-59, that unit 2026
executes a BITBLT (blitter) operation such as a color operation
and various logic operations in accordance with a predetermined
operation mode. However, we agree with appellants’ position to
the effect that this teaching is not sufficiently detailed to
amount to a teaching of converting source image data in a first
color format to target image data in a second color format during
a blitter operation.
New Ground of Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
The reference relied on in the new ground of rejection is:
“Programmer’s Guide to the EGA, VGA, and Super VGA Cards” by
Ferraro, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Third Edition,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007