Appeal No. 96-3637
Application No. 08/248,123
With respect to Smith, the position taken by the examiner is
that it would have been obvious to use more than one frame
buffer 90 for storing different parts of the prerecording
image, such that the speed for retrieving the image would be
faster.
Although the examiner may be correct that two
buffers or memories could be used to speed up image retrieval
in Smith, there is no evidence relied on by the examiner which
establishes that the use of two buffers or memories to speed
up image retrieval, or any other kind of information
retrieval, was known in the prior art at the time the
invention was made. The examiner has not provided an adequate
factual basis to support an obviousness conclusion. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
The mere fact that the prior art can be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007