Appeal No. 2003-1544
Application No. 09/126,171
these teachings with instant claim 1 which provides for a buffer “independent of a
memory” for holding intermediate frame data; and instant claim 15 which provides for a
buffer system “independent of a memory” coupled to a decoder and which holds data of
the intermediate frames. Appellant asserts that Hoogenboom and Schoner are silent
with regard to a buffer or buffer system independent from the DRAM 22 or memory 102
for holding the decoded B-fields.
Moreover, argues appellant, whereas instant claims 1 and 15 provide a first
mode of operation where a picture is encoded as a single frame and the decoder
decodes the single frame “twice,” Hoogenboom teaches that B-frames can be decoded
on a frame basis into a first field and a second field and Schoner teaches that the
bitstream decoder 114 decodes a next frame after reaching the end of a current frame.
Appellant stresses that decoding two fields of a single frame is not the same as
decoding the single frame twice, and that neither of the references, taken alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests decoding a frame twice, as required by the instant
claims.
We have reviewed the references, as well as the arguments of both appellant
and the examiner and we have concluded that appellant is correct in his assessment
that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
Each independent claim requires, inter alia, that there be a buffer “independent”
of the memory for holding intermediate frame data for display. In addition, independent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007