Appeal No. 2003-1544
Application No. 09/126,171
Moreover, asserts appellant, even if decoder 114 and buffer 116 of Schoner
could somehow be incorporated into Hoogenboom, the modified processor 20 would
be unable to display video data. In contrast thereto, argues appellant, instant claim 1
requires a buffer independent of a memory for holding intermediate frame data for
display and instant claim 15 requires a buffer system independent of a memory coupled
to the decoder and which holds data of the intermediate frames for display. Since the
proposed combination would not result in any display capability, appellant argues, the
suggested combination of references is improper for a showing of obviousness of the
instant claimed subject matter.
Appellant argues that the Hoogenboom and Schoner teachings conflict in the
area of reconstructing the decoded video for display but that even if the combination is
made, the claimed subject matter of a buffer/buffer system independent of a memory
and a first mode of operation where a picture is encoded as a single frame and a
decoder decodes the single frame twice is still not suggested by the combination of
references.
This is so, according to appellant, because Hoogenboom teaches that the
anchor frames 70 and 76 and the decoded B-fields 80 and 82 are all stored in a DRAM
22 under the control of a memory manager 30; and Schoner teaches that two anchor
frames and a portion of a B-frame are stored in a memory 102. Appellant contrasts
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007