Appeal No. 1996-2197
Application 08/150,548
variation in the processing start time for sub-regions in each
frame is an arbitrary design choice" (Answer, page 5), nor do
we agree with the examiner that "to simultaneously start the
processing after the completion of fetching of data for all
regions is a design choice, where the simultaneous starting
offers no advantage in processing speed" (Supplemental Answer,
page 2). To the contrary, we find that the most significant
aspect of appellants’ invention recited in the claims on
appeal is that it increases processing speed. Appellants
specifically point out that the purpose of their invention is
to make "the best use of the processing capacity of the
parallel arrangement of multiprocessors" so that the
processors operate together to "minimize delays due to longer
processing times for some portions of the frame"
(specification, page 8).
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the
subject matter recited in the claims and the applied prior art
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007