Appeal No. 2003-0796
Application No. 09/260,031
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Hannah with Foley, as held by the Examiner, the
combination would still fall short of teaching a texture
processing circuit for dividing the homogeneous coordinates (s,t)
of a texture included in the interpolation data by the
homogeneous term q. We note that, similar to claim 6,
independent claim 11 recites an interpolation data generation
circuit and a texture processing circuit. Therefore, as the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 6 and 11 as well as claims 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15,
dependent thereon, over Hannah and Foley.
With respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 14, the
Examiner further relies on Coelho for teaching look-up tables
coupled to a computer memory (final, page 4). However, Coelho
provides no teaching related to the claimed division using the
homogeneous coordinates (s,t) and the homogeneous term q and
fails to overcome the deficiencies of Hannah and Foley as
discussed above. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 9 and 14 cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007