Appeal No. 1996-2197
Application 08/150,548
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s averment that
simultaneously starting the processing after all fetching is
done is an "inherent feature in the system" (Answer, page 3).
We cannot agree with the examiner’s circular reasoning
(Answer, page 5) that if all sub-regions were merged into one
region, then all processing would start simultaneously after
all the sub-regions were fetched. The fact is that
appellants’ admitted prior art, as well as the subject matter
on appeal, concern one frame which is made up of plural
assigned frame regions or sub-regions. We agree with
appellants that "no variations of the prior art system [which
does not simultaneously start] are discussed in the
specification" and that the "specification does not teach or
suggest any variations or modifications" (Reply Brief, page
3). "Nothing in the specification suggests that sub-regions
can be eliminated in the prior art systems" (Reply Brief,
pages 3 to 4). Accordingly, we find that it would not have
been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to simultaneously
start processing after fetching all of the assigned frame
regions as required by representative claim 5 on appeal.
Lastly, we do not agree with the examiner that "any
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007