Appeal No. 2001-0529 Page 9
Application No. 08/846,600
Turning to the claimed invention, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a texel address generator operably coupled to receive the plurality of spans
and to produce, therefrom, a set of texel addresses for a particular point of one of the
plurality of spans. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require generating a set of texel addresses for a particular
point of one of a plurality of spans.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck, 800
F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.'"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007