Appeal 2007-1573
Application 10/705,094
Claims 44-48, 50, 52-61, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Narayanaswami.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Narayanaswami (Answer 3-4). Regarding
representative claim 44,3 Appellants argue that Narayanaswami does not
disclose (1) analyzing the time taken by each pipeline to render their
respective portions of the graphics image, and (2) automatically adjusting
3 Appellants argue the claims on appeal together as a group. See Br. 5-7.
Accordingly, we select claim 44 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013