Appeal No. 1999-2001
Application No. 08/664,089
testing machine and a circuit board would have been useful or
desirable for translating pixel formats for display in Sakoda's
computer system. Furthermore, if the determination of pixel
formats in Sakoda were removed, the display would not function.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 23, and their
dependents, claims 2, 4 through 8, and 10.
Independent claim 14, and dependent claims 3, 11, 15, and
16, each recite a translation board removably coupled to a
graphics controller and also the particular type of signals (LVDS
signals) output by the translation board. The examiner adds
Koenig to the primary combination for a teaching of LVDS signals.
However, Koenig fails to cure the deficiencies of Sakoda and
Shah. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3,
11, and 14 through 16.
As to claims 12, 13, and 17 through 22, the examiner adds
Reinhardt to Sakoda, Shah, and Koenig. However, Reinhardt adds
nothing regarding the shortcomings of the primary combination.
Consequently, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13,
and 17 through 22.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007