Appeal No. 1998-2572
Application 08/342,671
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to sole independent claim 1, the examiner
notes that Urbanus teaches the processing of pixel data for
display on an SLM. The examiner admits that Urbanus “does not
disclose the relationship between reading and writing
operations of pixel data during the first and second frame
period to and from the memory” [answer, pages 3-4]. The
examiner cites Wakeland as teaching that it was well known to
read and write first and second overlaying images
simultaneously. The examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to incorporate Wakeland’s
simultaneous storage and reading of first and second images
into the device of Urbanus in order to decrease the required
memory size [id., page 4].
Appellants argue that the definition of bit-planes as
set forth in their specification is different from the bit-
planes of Wakeland. Appellants also argue that the claimed
invention recites the processing of two different frames of
data whereas Wakeland teaches the processing of two
superimposed images within the same data frame [brief, pages
4-6]. The examiner responds that Wakeland’s bit-planes are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007