Appeal No. 96-1492
Application 07/666,162
Liu allocates tasks using a completely different methodology
from Natarajan or the claimed invention. Natarajan is similar
to the claimed invention in that it uses a centralized system
to assign tasks based on equalizing the time to perform tasks
by processors operating in parallel. The strategies of
Natarajan and Liu could not be combined into a single system
without destroying the main benefit set forth in
each of the respective disclosures. Therefore, we find no
basis in the applied prior art to combine their teachings in
the manner proposed by the examiner.
Appellants’ argument that the order of assigning tasks
to the processors is not a mere design choice is also well-
taken. The output frames of the disclosed invention can only
become available at substantially the same time if they are
distributed in the manner recited in claim 1. Any other order
would delay the time at which the output frames are available
for use by subsequent processing. This is a question of
obviousness which has not been addressed by the examiner. The
examiner’s finding
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007