Appeal No. 1996-2197
Application 08/150,548
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA
1971).
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 3 to 5) that their
admitted prior art Figures 17 to 23 fail to teach or suggest
assigning non-contiguous frame regions to each unit processor,
and instead assigns contiguous regions to each processor. We
agree, and we note that the examiner admits that the admitted
prior art "does not expressly state the assigned regions are
non-contiguous" (Answer, page 3).
As described in their specification, appellants’ Figure
17 shows a unit processor (CPU 171) which instructs plural
processing units (173a-h) to "transfer data sequentially"
(specification, page 2), such that the input data is
transfered "for the regions assigned thereto" (specification,
page 2). Once the processing units (173a-h) have completed
processing for the assigned regions, the unit processor
instructs the processing units to start processing "for the
subsequent regions" (specification, page 3). In addition,
processing of fetched input data must be completed before
"subsequent" data can be fetched (see specification, page 6).
Thus, the contiguous and sequential nature of conventional
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007