Appeal No. 1996-2197
Application 08/150,548
image processors such as that described by appellants in
relation to Figures 17 to 23 results in a low processing
efficiency of the image processor. Appellants have recognized
this difficulty with the prior art, and have increased
processing efficiency by assigning non-contiguous frame
regions to the unit processors.
We cannot agree with the examiner that the ordinarily
skilled artisan "would have adopted such non-contiguous region
assignment to achieve less fluctuation in the processing time"
(Answer, page 3), especially if it is true that "it makes no
difference whether the assigned regions are contiguous or non-
contiguous" as the examiner alleges (Answer, pages 3 to 4).
The only direction to assign non-contiguous frame regions
(instead of contiguous frame regions as previously known) is
found in appellants’ own disclosure. We find that to modify
appellants’ admitted prior art image processor of Figures 17
to 23 in order to achieve appellant’s claimed invention would
have required the use of impermissible hindsight.
We also agree with appellants that "nothing in the
admitted prior art suggests starting the processors
simultaneously in processing a frame" (Reply Brief, page 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007