Appeal No. 2002-1311
Application No. 09/042,291
the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the
basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived by appellant [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to the rejection of representative, independent claim 1, the examiner
essentially finds that Gonzalez-Lopez teaches the claimed invention except for one memory
element which comprises an image buffer region and a Z buffer region, the image buffer region
being separate from the Z buffer region, wherein Z coordinates are stored in the Z buffer region
and pixel colors are stored in the image buffer region. The examiner cites In re Larson ,
however, as rendering obvious the integration of parts such as two separate memory elements
into one. Thus, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan to have
modified the memory structure of Gonzalez-Lopez based on the holding of In re Larson
(hereinafter Larson) [answer, pages 4-6].
Appellant argues that the facts in Larson have nothing to do with combining separate
memory elements into one. Appellant argues that the claimed invention is more than simply
combining two separate elements into one. Appellant notes that the claimed invention recites a
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007