Appeal No. 2000-0414
Application No. 08/811,101
Claims 1 and 24-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miyashita.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed Feb. 19, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief1 (Paper No. 14, filed Sep. 28, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 18, filed Mar. 15, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the examiner's rejection cannot be valid because the
analysis is based upon flawed interpretation of the Miyashita reference. (See brief at
page 7.) We agree with appellants. The examiner admits that Miyashita does not
teach the generation of the line data beginning the clock cycle immediately succeeding
a clock cycle, but relies upon the flow diagram in Figure 6 which the examiner maintains
"suggests the starting of the line draw process immediate[ly] after finishing [the] input
1 We note that appellants attached an unsigned proposed amendment to the appeal brief, but
chose not to officially file the paper. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the claims as previously
amended.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007