Appeal No. 2003-0796
Application No. 09/260,031
Claims 6-8, 10-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hannah in view of Foley.
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hannah in view of Coelho.2
We make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 12,
mailed August 10, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
January 15, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 14, filed November 13, 2001) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed March 14, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 6-8, 10-13 and 15,
Appellants acknowledge that Hannah discloses a texture processing
circuit on a chip while Foley discloses a division function
related to homogeneous coordinates and transformations (brief,
page 8). Appellants, however, argue that the claimed “texture
processing circuit for dividing the homogeneous coordinates (s,t)
of a texture included in the interpolation data by the
homogeneous term q” is shown in neither Hannah nor Foley (brief,
pages 9 & 10 and reply brief, page 3). Additionally, Appellants
indicate that the transformation taught by Foley is not a circuit
2 The rejection should have probably been over Hannah and Foley in view
of Coelho as the base claims are rejected over both Hannah and Foley.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007