Appeal No. 1996-2197
Application 08/150,548
wherein each of said unit processors is assigned a
plurality of frame regions which are not contiguous to each
other, and
means for causing all the unit processors to
simultaneously start processing the input partial image
signals after all of the input partial image signals
corresponding to the assigned frame regions have been fetched.
Claims 5 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon appellants’
admitted prior art of Figures 17 to 23.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and the Answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view that the prior art relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 5 to 12. We also find that
any conclusion of obviousness of the invention as recited in
the claims on appeal would necessarily have involved the
improper use of hindsight.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007