Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
in a different format from the application program data stored in
either of the individual buffers 342 and 344. Further, contrary
to Appellant’s contention (Brief, page 11) that the differing
buffer transfer rates in Howard are “ . . . irrelevant to any
transformation,” it is our view that, as alluded to by the
Examiner (Answer, pages 6 and 7), it is precisely these different
transfer rates (Howard, Figures 5A through 6B) that give rise to
a transformation of the buffer data to an interleaved format for
presentation to the output display. Further, we find no error,
and Appellant has pointed to none, in the Examiner’s stated
rationale for combining Van Vliet with Howard since, in our view,
the data transformation technique described by Howard provides a
clear suggestion to the skilled artisan of an obvious enhancement
to the high and low resolution display system of Van Vliet.
We also note that our review of the disclosure in Van Vliet
also reveals that the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative claim 1 is sustainable based on Van Vliet alone.
In our opinion, the description in Van Vliet reveals a disclosure
which can reasonably be interpreted as providing application data
in a first format (low resolution buffer 18) which is transformed
into data in a second format when combined with data in high
resolution buffer 32 for presentation to output display 24. As
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007