Appeal No. 1997-0201
Application No. 08/140,318
being connected in a pipeline configuration. We note that the
relevant portion of claim 4 recites:
outputs of said processing units being
connected in a pipeline configuration
via a plurality of additive nodes,...
Upon careful review of the Komarek reference, we are in
agreement with the Examiner that the processing units in
Figure 1 of Komarek are “pipelined” through additive nodes at
least in the manner broadly recited in the claims. While
Appellant has focused his arguments on the alleged
deficiencies of the fan-out configuration of Komarek’s Figure
4, it is apparent to us that the Figure 1 illustration of
Komarek, also relied on by the Examiner, clearly describes the
outputs of processing elements being “pipelined” down to
additive nodes, the outputs of which are added to the outputs
of other processing elements. We are further persuaded by the
Examiner’s citation of various portions of Komarek which
suggest the apparent practical necessity of utilizing pipeline
processing for implementing block-matching algorithms
(Komarek, p. 1302, left and right hand columns, last
paragraph). In our view, the Examiner’s analysis and line of
reasoning establishes a prima facie case of anticipation which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007