Appeal No. 2000-0975
Application No. 08/956,402
one dedicated geometry processing parallel processor and at least one dedicated
rasterization parallel processor.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13. In our opinion, the requirements of the
claim follow from the combined teachings of the references. Since the rasterizing step
for any particular band occurs after the geometry processing of the band, and after the
still earlier step of language interpretation, the artisan would have recognized that
language interpretation and geometry processing may be performed on a “current
page” of print data while a rasterizing step is performed on a “previous page” of print
data.
We also sustain the rejection of claim 14. We have noted that Molnar teaches
the benefits of separate processors for geometry processing and rasterization. The
reference discloses that, although “many” do, not all such systems use separate
processors for the relevant tasks. In context of the discussion at pages 24 through 25
of the reference, Molnar would have suggested use of all the parallel processors
performing both geometry processing and rasterization on the primitives list, at least for
the purposes of a sort-first or sort-last scheme.
We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in making the foregoing
determinations. However, arguments appellants might have made, but did not rely
upon, are deemed waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“Any arguments or authorities not
included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007