Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
data described by Maruko in the display system of Diepstraten
and that “[t]he use of 80 clock cycles…would have been an
obvious expedient due to the eighty resultant pixels provided
by the 8x10 array” [answer-page 4].
The examiner’s rationale, in our view as well as in
appellant’s, is unreasonable. There is a clear implication in
the examiner’s rationale that Maruko teaches the writing of
one pixel per clock cycle, yet the examiner points to nothing
in Maruko, or anywhere else, to support such a position. We
agree with appellant that the “mere fact that the art teaches
an 8x10 array does not in any way teach or suggestion [sic,
suggest] how such array could be updated within eighty clock
cycles, as claimed” [brief-page 11, emphasis in original].
We will sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103.
This claim requires the copying of consecutive data words
to a range of consecutive addresses and means for receiving
the words intended for the range and causing the video
controller to actuate “a column of pixels…”
As broadly recited, Diepstraten’s graphics processor
copies a field of consecutive data words to some range of
consecutive addresses and those data words are then used to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007