Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. 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 [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant’s arguments (Brief, pages 11 and 12) in response
to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim
1, rather than attacking the combinability of the Van Vliet and
Howard references, instead focus on the alleged deficiencies of
the references in disclosing a key feature of the appealed
claims, i.e., the transformation of application program inputs
from a first format to a second format for output on a display
device. In particular, Appellant asserts (id.) that Howard
merely discloses two buffers which store and present data to a
display in one format.
After careful review of the applied prior art references in
light of the arguments of record, we are in general agreement
with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. In
particular, our interpretation of the disclosure of Howard
generally coincides with that of the Examiner, i.e., in contrast
to Appellant’s assertions, the interleaved format data presented
to the video controller 330 of the output display 335 is clearly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007