Appeal No. 2003-1544
Application No. 09/126,171
claims 1, 9 and 15 require that a single frame is decoded twice.
We agree with appellant that the cited references do not appear to teach or
suggest at least these two claimed features.
The examiner relies on Hoogenboom’s DRAM 22 being “independent” from
“memory” 30 as a teaching of the independent memory limitation. However, it is clear
from Hoogenboom’s disclosure, e.g., column 6, line 13, that element 30 is a “memory
manager,” and not a memory, as alleged by the examiner. Moreover, there is no
evidence in Hoogenboom that there is a buffer that holds intermediate frame data for
display and that it is this buffer which is “independent” of the memory. If it is
Hoogenboom’s DRAM 22 which is relied on by the examiner as holding intermediate
frame data for display, then there is no evidence that this DRAM is independent of any
memory in Hoogenboom.
Further, to the extent that the examiner appears to rely some on Schoner’s FIFO
pointers and external memory 102 for this claim limitation, the FIFO pointers point to
addresses in the external memory and cannot said to be “independent” of that memory.
With regard to a single frame being decoded twice, the examiner relies on
Hoogenboom, at column 9, lines 23-38. The examiner alleges that Hoogenboom’s
decoder 20 has a decoding mode to decode a frame one-half of field one of the B-
frame and one-half of field two of the B-frame, “so this means that B-frame would be
decoded two times” (answer-page 6).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007