Appeal No. 2000-0414
Application No. 08/811,101
[of the] second value (steps 108-114)". (Examiner’s answer, page 3). We disagree
with the examiner. From our understanding of Figure 6 of Miyashita, Miyashita
discloses that the inquiry concerning the use of the auto-adjust of input coordinates
(step 112) takes place immediately after the input of the coordinates. Therefore,
Miyashita would not suggest the starting of the line draw process immediately after
finishing the input of the second value due to this intermediate step/inquiry. The
examiner provides no further explanation or analysis of the teachings of Miyashita
beyond stating that "[a[fter storing the value, the system will start to process the data in
which that clock cycle is kicked in." (See answer at page 4.) Again, we disagree with
the examiner’s conclusion and do not find it to be supported by the teachings or
suggestions in Miyashita, nor has the examiner established a convincing line of
reasoning to support this conclusion. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 24-26. Similarly, independent claim 27
contains similar limitations, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 27-32.
With respect to independent claim 33, the examiner maintains that this claim is
similar to the other rejected claims and does not provide further explanation of the
rejection. (See answer at pages 3 and 6.) We disagree with the examiner. Appellants
argue that the examiner has provided no indication of how this particular claim would be
unpatentable in view of Miyashita. (See brief at page 11.) We agree with appellants.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention recites the use of a command bit register
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007