Appeal No. 2004-1558
Application No. 09/283,386
merely because the display list in OGL may be displayed “many times,” and the instant
invention is concerned with storing instructions as an executable program which can be
nested and executed from within another program, more efficiently rendering and re-
rendering scenes, thus overcoming the prior art problem of having to regenerate the
hardware instructions each time, this does not necessarily provide a reason why the
skilled artisan would have taken OGL’s teaching of executing a display list “many times”
and applied it to Devic in order to provide, in Devic, the “defining [of] hardware-level
instructions as an executable program to the host operating system. . .,” as claimed, in
differing language, in independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 16.
Since we do not find that the examiner’s rationale (viz., “. . .so that Devic’s
display list can be easily called for execution, as many times as desired) (answer-page
4) establishes sufficient motivation for making the proposed combination of Devic and
OGL, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-18, and 21-23 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
Turning to independent claims 19 and 20, these claims do not recite “defining. . .
captured hardware-level instructions as an executable program to the host operating
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007