Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 but we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
With regard to independent claim 1, the claim calls for a
two-step method of copying data to a video RAM. First, a
processor is ordered to copy a consecutive data field to
consecutive addresses in a video RAM. Clearly, this is part
of the prior art and is fairly suggested by Diepstraten.
The second step requires receiving the consecutive data
field from the processor and distributing it to non-
consecutive addresses in video RAM. Apparently, there is no
dispute that Diepstraten does disclose non-consecutive
addressing in video RAM. See, for example, appellant’s
statements, at page 7 of the brief, that “any non-consecutive
addressing for data in area 60 is accomplished by the
processor itself” and “…the data may be distributed in non-
consecutive addresses in RAM.”
The key issue, as we view it, is the claim requirement of
“receiving the consecutive data field from the processor.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007