Appeal 2007-1572
Application 09/726,831
(i.e., external) frame buffer can be coupled to the graphics controller
(Answer 7:15-19).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Crocker teaches away
from Reddy. Crocker’s Prior Art Figure 1 shows a system with (internal)
system memory 4, and also (external) frame buffer 6, which is connected to
the memory controller in chipset 3 via graphics controller 5 and I/O bus 8
(FF 5). Crocker explains that some prior art work stations have successfully
eliminated the additional cost of a stand alone frame buffer memory unit by
employing a portion of the physical system memory as the frame buffer (FF
8), but that the prior solutions have not been operating system-independent.
Crocker concludes that:
it would be desirable to be able to dynamically allocate physical
memory to a device other than the operating system while
maintaining the flexibility of the system to execute any
arbitrary operating systems supported. Moreover, it would be
desirable to provide graphical support on the motherboard
without requiring the expense of a corresponding add-in
dedicated memory. (FF 9; Crocker, col. 2, ll. 46-52).
We find that a person of ordinary skill, reading Crocker, would have
been led to provide graphical support on the motherboard by using a single,
internal RAM, employing a portion of the physical system memory as the
frame buffer. Such a single RAM module implementation would be a path
divergent from Reddy’s teaching of internal and external RAM components,
and divergent from Applicant’s internal display RAM and external display
RAM. Because we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led in such a divergent path by Crocker, we find that Crocker teaches
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013