Appeal No. 2002-1311
Application No. 09/042,291
single memory element for storing both the Z coordinates and the color values associated
therewith, which is not taught by Gonzalez-Lopez. Appellant also argues that the memory
controller of Gonzalez-Lopez operates differently from the claimed memory controller. Finally,
appellant argues that the claimed invention implements a batching architecture which is not
taught by Gonzalez-Lopez [brief, pages 5-12].
The examiner responds that Larson is applicable because it holds that it is obvious to
integrate two separate things into a single thing. The examiner reiterates that Larson renders
obvious appellant’s integration of the separate Gonzalez-Lopez image buffer region and Z buffer
region into a single memory. The examiner also finds that the reduced paging result of
appellant’s invention is not recited in the claims on appeal [answer, pages 11-14].
Appellant responds that the examiner has applied Larson as a prior art reference, but
appellant argues that Larson is non-analogous art and is, therefore, unavailable as prior art.
Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Gonzalez-Lopez
with Larson. Appellant also argues that the facts of Larson are distinguishable from the facts of
this case [reply brief, pages 4-10].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. We note, however,
that we do not agree with appellant’s argument that the case of Larson is being used as a prior art
reference by the examiner. The Larson case is being used by the examiner as a basis for finding
an acknowledged difference between the claimed invention and a prior art reference (Gonzalez-
Lopez) to be obvious. Thus, all of appellant’s arguments regarding the Larson case being non-
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007