Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
at least one real frame buffer coupled to the CPU and
to the display device, the at least one real frame buffer
having a first format compatible with the display device;
and
at least one alternate frame buffer coupled to the at
least one real frame buffer and the CPU, the at least one
alternate frame buffer having a second format compatible
with the application program and being provided in a device
list for access by the application program, wherein the CPU
controls transformations from the second format to the first
format transparently to the application program to allow
output to the display device from the at least one real
frame buffer.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Van Vliet et al. (Van Vliet) 4,439,762 Mar. 27, 1984
Howard et al. (Howard) 5,625,386 Apr. 29, 1997
(filed Sep. 30, 1994)
Claims 1-17, all of the appealed claims stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van
Vliet in view of Howard.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 19) and the
Answer (Paper No. 20) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007