Appeal No. 2004-1558
Application No. 09/283,386
system,” but they do recite that the hardware-level instructions are captured in a
memory as an executable program in response to a sequence of basic rendering
functions called by a graphics application program running in a host operating system,
and that the sequence defines a subscene. The examiner relies on Shaw for a teaching
of the claimed specification of a location within a primary scene for the subscene to be
rendered, but it is the combination of Devic and OGL which the examiner presumably
relies on for the capturing of instructions in response to a sequence of basic rendering
functions, and wherein the sequence defines a subscene.
The trouble with the examiner’s rationale for the rejection (see pages 6-7 of the
answer) is that the rationale never addresses the specific claim limitations of the
hardware-level instructions generated by a device driver in response to a sequence of
basic rendering functions called by a graphics application program running in a host
operating system, said sequence defining a subscene.” The rationale, at pages 6-7 of
the answer, never addresses a “sequence” or a “subscene” at all. Rather, the examiner
appears to be restating the same rationale for rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-18, and
21-23. Accordingly, the examiner has never addressed key limitations in the claims
and, for this deficiency alone, the rejection of claims 19, 20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 cannot be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007