Appeal No. 96-1727
Application 08/130,575
We do not set forth a rejection for dependent claims 5 through 7 since Nishi clearly
does not teach the features recited therein. The VRAM memories in Nishi are not taught to
be used alternatively since there is no specific teaching that two RAM’s are used in an
alternate manner to increase the process speed of the image data as recited in dependent
claim 5. There is no specific teaching that two RAMs perform alternatively read and write
operations to so increase the speed of image data. As such, the features of its dependent
claim 6 also cannot be met by Nishi. Additionally, since there is no teaching in Nishi of
data compression or decompression in a video display environment, the features recited
in dependent claim 7 cannot be met. The examiner may choose to apply additional prior
art to Nishi to reject claims 5 through 7.
It is noted that there are additional VRAM teachings in the options paragraph at
column 29 beginning at line 46 which expand even further the interpretation of the various
dual memories recited in each independent claim on appeal beyond those specifically set
forth and noted. To the extent broadly recited in the noted claims that we reject, the
identified elements in Nishi appear to be identical to or correspond in structure and
function to the claimed elements that are rejected.
It is thus believed that the bulk of the appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply
brief directed at Nishi have been answered directly or indirectly by the above noted
correlation. With respect to appellants’ arguments at pages 11 and 12 of the principal
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007