Appeal No. 2003-1544
Application No. 09/126,171
The examiner then turns to Schoner for a teaching of a
decoder (114 of fig. 8) for decoding a B-frame that is considered
as a single frame in a first decoding set of lines that are considered
as odd lines of a first field (odd field) and a second decoding set of
lines that are considered as even lines of a second field (even field)
(col. 9, lines 60 through col. 10, lines 1-9), and a pointer table in
FIFO Buffers (116 of fig. 8) for distributing incoming data to any
available memory location in buffer, the address of the memory
location being stored in the pointer table. (answer-page 5).
The examiner then concludes, from these teachings of Hoogenboom and
Schoner, that it would have been obvious to incorporate the decoder and pointer table
of Schoner into the decoding system of Hoogenboom “for [the] same purpose of
decoding the single frame twice and pointer is distributing incoming data to any
available memory location FIFO buffers” (answer-page 5). The examiner suggests that
the artisan would have been led to make this combination so as to “reduce the memory
requirements of the decoder as much as possible to reduce its size and cost” (answer-
page 5), citing column 5, lines 28-30, of Schoner.
Appellant takes the position that the examiner has failed to present a prima facie
case of obviousness in that there is no reasonable expectation of success for the
suggested combination. In particular, appellant contends that no evidence has been
provided for where in the processor 20 of Hoogenboom the decoder 114 and buffer 116
of Schoner would be inserted.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007