Appeal No. 2004-0995
Application No. 09/984,546
figure 3a at column 9, line 48 through col. 10, line 2; the
showing of two pen event buffers (302, 309) in figure 3a; and the
discussion at the bottom of column 10, line 61 through column 13,
line 29. Note particularly the discussion of local inking at
column 11 generally and the details at column 12, lines 1-13 and
column 13, lines 14-21.
In traversing the examiner’s stated rejection in the answer
at page 5 of the brief, appellant recognizes that the “viewer of
Banerjee et al. receives video events from the host computer and
stores them in a video event buffer 305” and further indicates
that the “display in digitizer/display unit 342 is part of an
LCD subsystem 113 that includes an LCD screen 113c, . . . a video
memory 113b, . . . . ” On the basis of this interpretation of
the reference, appellant asserts that there is only one video
event buffer 305 to correspond to one of the two recited video
buffers in claim 7 on appeal by taking the view that the
“Examiner mistakenly characterizes video memory 113b as a ‘video
buffer.’” Brief, bottom of page 5.
Initially, we do not agree with appellant’s assertion at
page 6 of the brief that the video memory 113b is part of one
embodiment and video event buffer 305 is part of a different
embodiment. According to the brief description of the drawings
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007