Appeal No. 2004-1558
Application No. 09/283,386
We have not sustained any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 because the
examiner has failed to establish the requisite motivation for combining the proposed
references and/or has failed to address each and every claim limitation. But, we note
that some of appellants’ arguments were not persuasive. Whereas appellants argue
that appellants’ invention executes hardware instructions as if “for real” (principal brief-
page 13), but stores the instructions as an executable program, without the need for any
special binding libraries at a low level, and appellants argue that their program can be
“nested and executed from within another program, to make scene rendering and re-
rendering more efficient” (principal brief-page 13), we note that these argued limitations
do not appear in the claims and, so, are unpersuasive. Similarly, appellants point out,
at page 15 of the principal brief, that Devic’s function calls are “only temporarily” stored
in a memory until the last high-level hardware instruction is received, and then the high-
level hardware instructions are executed and discarded, making it necessary for the
host processor to regenerate the high-level hardware instructions required for drawing a
repetitive shape, for example. Appellants make this point to distinguish Devic’s system
from the instant invention which repeatedly calls on the executable program, so that the
instructions need not be regenerated as they are already nested within another
program. However, we do not find any such distinguishing language in the instant
claims.
In any event, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-25
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007