Appeal No. 2005-1995
Application 09/133,741
Claims 3, 12, 13, 49, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rossin and Sutherland,
further in view of Narayanaswami.
Claims 18 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rossin and Sutherland, further in view of
Watkins and Narayanaswami.
We refer to the final rejection (pages referred to as
"FR__") and the examiner's answer (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (pages referred to
as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
The examiner finds (EA3-4):
Rossin et al teaches a method for clipping graphics
primitives. The method comprises the steps of: using a
clipping algorithm with only one buffer 304 (Fig. 3 and 5A)
to store input and output polygons of the primitive
(fig. 5A; col. 8, lines 66-67 and col. 11, lines 48-51;
col. 12, lines 4-12; and col. 4, lines 17-32); and
indicating whether each vertices [sic] is visible in each
plane (col. 7, lines 58-65).
The examiner finds that Rossin does not disclose using a circular
buffer, but finds that "Sutherland suggests using a circular
buffer to store clip data (page 720, last two lines of the first
column; page 732, second column, section 'Other Devices using the
Same Protocol'; page 735, first column, first paragraph)" (EA4),
and concludes that it would have been obvious to replace the one
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007