Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 17, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of this claim based on Van Vliet alone.
Although Appellant has grouped claim 17 separately, Appellant’s
arguments rely on assertions previously made with regard to the
alleged lack of transformation of data in the applied prior art
references, an argument we found to be unpersuasive as discussed
supra.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 12-16, we note that while we found
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the
obviousness rejection of claims 1-11 and 17, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 12-16. In contrast to
independent claims 1 and 17 previously discussed which broadly
recite data transformation from an application input first format
to an output display second format, claims 12-16 require the
transformation of data from a first format in one frame buffer to
a second format in a second frame buffer. Our review of the
descriptions in Van Vliet and Howard reveals no teaching or
suggestion, either individually or collectively, which would
satisfy this claimed requirement.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007