Appeal No. 1999-2614
Application No. 08/667,826
With respect to each of independent claims 1, 8, and 16, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to
modify the graphics controller system of Grunewald. According to
the Examiner, Grunewald discloses the claimed invention except
for the failure “ . . . to explicitly teach at least one of
plurality of instructions comprising a set register instruction
and at least another of the plurality of instructions being an
execute instruction.” (Answer, page 3). To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to Sone which, in the Examiner’s
view, discloses the claimed set register and execute
instructions. The Examiner’s stated position (id. at 4) suggests
the obviousness to the skilled artisan of applying the set
register and execution instruction teachings of Sone to the
graphic controller system of Grunewald in order to achieve high
resolution color graphic images.
In response, Appellants assert that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or suggested by
the applied Grunewald and Sone references. After careful review
of the applied prior art references in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as stated
in the Brief. As argued by Appellants (Brief, pages 8 and 9),
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007