Appeal 2007-0563
Application 10/001,940
1 Applicants’ arguments that (1) Iwamura’s z buffering method is
2 incompatible with Montgomery’s item buffering, and (2) that it would make
3 no sense to replace Iwamura’s superior z buffering method with
4 Montgomery’s item buffering method are not persuasive. The fundamental
5 problem with Applicants’ arguments is that Applicants have failed to
6 sufficiently demonstrate that Iwamura only contemplates graphic rendering
7 using z buffering, or forecloses using any other type of buffering. A text
8 search of “Z buffer” or “Z buffering” revealed only one reference in
9 Iwamura to z buffering. That same passage is the one that the Applicants
10 rely upon in support of their argument that Iwamura only contemplates Z
11 buffering. That passage does not facially limit the Iwamura system in any
12 way. Iwamura states that the ground object data can be obtained by a z
13 buffer method in computer graphics, but that it can also be detected by the
14 map data (FF 18). Applicants’ argument that that passage supports its
15 assertion that Iwamura only contemplates using z buffering is not
16 persuasive. Such an argument is conclusory and inconsistent with the plain
17 meaning of the passage. Based on the record and contrary to Applicants’
18 arguments, the passage does not indicate that the only method contemplated
19 by Iwamura for rendering graphical objects is through z buffering.
20 Applicants’ argument that Montgomery’s item buffering is not compatible
21 with Iwamura’s z buffering is based on Applicants’ unsupported assumption
22 that Iwamura only contemplates z buffering. Accordingly, Applicants’
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013