Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
With regard to Van Vliet, while, in our view, the combined
data from the low and high resolution memories 18 and 32 when
presented to display 24 is in a different format than the data in
either of the individual memories 18 and 32, there is no
transformation of data in one format in a first memory, i.e., low
resolution memory 18, to a second format in a second memory,
i.e., high resolution memory 32. In other words, the format of
the data in the individual memories 18 and 32 in Van Vliet is the
same and no buffer to buffer transformation takes place as
claimed. Similarly, in Howard, while the interleaving of data
read out from the two buffers 342 and 344 results in an
interleaved format of data presented to video controller 330, the
data in first format in buffer 342 is not transformed into a
second format in buffer 344. Accordingly, since all of the
claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art references, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 12-16 is not sustained.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-11 and 17, but have not sustained
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 12-16. Therefore, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007