Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
composed picture is stored to “one-frame memory and read-side device” 73.1 Kashigi
goes on to detail, in columns 9 and 10, how the multiple pictures may be compressed
and then arranged for display. “[T]he first through the fourth compressed pictures
should be positioned in top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right quarter areas P,
Q, R, and S (not shown), respectively, of the composed picture.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 24-27.
We note that Kashigi’s description of the “composed picture” appears substantially
identical to the 2 x 2 “multiple-screen arrangement” illustrated in appellant’s Figures 2a
and 2b, and described at pages 9 through 10 of the specification.
Appellant’s only point of contention in the Supplemental Reply to Examiner’s
Request for Rehearing (“Appellant’s Reply”), filed Aug. 9, 2001, is based on the
allegation that the Examiner has not made out a case of prima facie obviousness
because the Examiner has failed to “adequately explain or show exactly where Kashigi
specifically and operatively teaches how memory 80 (or any other memory for that
matter in Kashigi), stores image data in an arrangement in the memory that is capable
of constructing multiple screens.” (Appellant’s Reply at 5.) We rely on the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning in the Answer and in the Request for Rehearing, and our original
decision, for the other claim limitations.
Since Kashigi discloses that the composed picture output is made up of (four)
multiple screens, we do not see how Kashigi might fail to disclose that the image data is
1 As the Examiner notes (Request for Rehearing at 10), element 73 is mislabeled in Figure 5 as a
“write-side” device.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007