Appeal No. 1998-2572
Application 08/342,671
the same as appellants’ bit-planes and that the claimed
simultaneous processing of two frames of data as broadly
interpreted is met by the teachings of Wakeland [answer, page
7].
We are not persuaded by appellants’ first argument
that the bit-planes of claim 1 are different from the bit-
planes of Wakeland because it appears to us that Urbanus
teaches the conversion of pixel data into bit-plane data for
display on an SLM. Thus, Wakeland is not needed to teach this
feature of the claimed invention. However, we are persuaded
by appellants’ second argument. The entire thrust of
appellants’ invention results from the simultaneous processing
of two different frames of data. As argued by appellants,
Wakeland is concerned with the processing of two images to be
superimposed within the same frame of data and has nothing to
do with the simultaneous processing of data from two different
frames of data. We can find nothing in Wakeland to support
the examiner’s bare assertion that Wakeland suggests the
simultaneous processing of two different frames of data.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of independent claim 1 based on the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007