Appeal No. 2003-1544
Application No. 09/126,171
However, reading a bit further in the reference, past the cited portion, reveals
that appellant’s explanation, at pages 2-3 of the reply brief is correct:
Hoogenboom teaches decoding a B-frame in a frame order.
Hoogenboom teaches storing decoded “field one” data in buffer
80 and decoded “field two” data in buffer 82. Half way through
decoding the B-frame, the buffer 80 becomes full. Therefore, the
system starts to display the decoded frame and thereby starts to empty
the buffer 80. As buffer 80 is being emptied for display, decoding
of the B-frame continues with the now emptying buffer 80 continuing
to accept the decoded “field one” data and the larger buffer 82 continuing
to accept the decoded “field two” data. After the B-frame has been decoded
once, the system finishes displaying the “field one” data from the buffer 80
and then displays the “field two” data from the buffer 82. As a result, buffer
80 is used twice during one decode of the B-frame. Hoogenboom does not
appear to teach or suggest decoding the B-frame a second time because after
the first decode, all of the decoded field information has either been displayed
from buffer 80 and/or is available for display in buffer 80 and buffer 82.
We also agree with appellant that Schoner also does not appear to teach the
decoding of a B-frame twice, as claimed. The examiner relies on column 9, line 60
through column 10, line 9, of Schoner and contends that Schoner decodes a B-frame in
a first decoding of a set of odd lines of a first field and a second decoding of a set of
even lines of a second field. Accordingly, alleges the examiner, since the first field and
second field are in a frame, the decoder “would obviously decode the frame twice”
(answer-page 6).
We agree with appellant that the placing of decoded odd lines and decoded
even lines into two different memory blocks (which is taught by the cited portion of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007