Ex parte Herbert

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 1998

08065387 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte BRIAN K. HERBERT
_______________
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application 08/065,3871
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 9, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention pertains to step addressing in a video RAM.
More particularly, data words intended for consecutive address
locations are intercepted and distributed into video RAM at
evenly spaced, non-consecutive addresses so that when a

1 Application for patent filed May 20, 1993.
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
2
graphics controller generates pixels on a display, based on
these evenly spaced addresses, the pixels will automatically
occupy a vertical
column on the display. Thus, the invention permits CPU
addressing of data in rows (consecutively) and subsequent
writing to video RAM in columns (non-consecutively) with an
intermediate graphics controller performing the translation
from consecutive to non-consecutive addresses, which saves CPU
processing time.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A method of copying data to video RAM in a computer,
comprising the following steps:
(a) ordering a processor to copy a consecutive data
field to consecutive addresses in video RAM; and

(b) receiving the consecutive data field from the
processor, and distributing it to non-consecutive
addresses in video RAM.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Maruko 4,613,852 Sep. 23, 1986
Diepstraten et al. 5,231,383 Jul. 27, 1993
(Diepstraten) (filed Mar. 25, 1991)
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Diepstraten
with regard to claims 1 through 3, 8 and 9, adding Maruko with
regard to claims 4 through 7.
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
3
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 but we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
With regard to independent claim 1, the claim calls for a
two-step method of copying data to a video RAM. First, a
processor is ordered to copy a consecutive data field to
consecutive addresses in a video RAM. Clearly, this is part
of the prior art and is fairly suggested by Diepstraten.
The second step requires receiving the consecutive data
field from the processor and distributing it to non-
consecutive addresses in video RAM. Apparently, there is no
dispute that Diepstraten does disclose non-consecutive
addressing in video RAM. See, for example, appellant’s
statements, at page 7 of the brief, that “any non-consecutive
addressing for data in area 60 is accomplished by the
processor itself” and “…the data may be distributed in non-
consecutive addresses in RAM.”
The key issue, as we view it, is the claim requirement of
“receiving the consecutive data field from the processor.”
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
4
This means that something must receive the output from the
processor and that that output must be the “consecutive data
field,” as claimed. That something, as disclosed by
appellant, is an interface between the processor and the video
RAM as shown, for example, in instant Figure 9.
While the examiner is correct in asserting that
Diepstraten does discuss the use of contiguous addresses in
the video RAM at column 1, lines 41-61, there is no indication
therein that anything receives a consecutive data field from
the processor. If, in fact, the VRAM control 26 of
Diepstraten, as shown in Figure 1 of the patent and, in more
detail, in Figure 4, accepted a consecutive data field from
graphics processor 22 and then distributed this consecutive
data field to non-consecutive addresses in VRAM 30, then we
would agree that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 would
have been proper. However, we find no indication in
Diepstraten, and the examiner has not pointed to anything
therein to convince us, that VRAM control 26 does, in fact,
accept a consecutive data field from processor 22 and
distribute it to non-consecutive addresses in VRAM 30. In
fact, it would appear that Diepstraten operates as contended
by appellant, at page 7 of the brief. That is,
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
5
Any type of non-consecutive addressing for memory
region 60 [of VRAM 30] must be performed by the
processor itself. Hence, although the data may be
distributed in non-consecutive addresses in RAM, it
was initially generated by the processor as non-
consecutively addressed data.
The examiner has pointed to nothing within the disclosure of
Diepstraten that would contradict this reading of the
reference. Clearly, if the non-consecutive addressing was
already performed by the processor, there would be nothing to
receive “the consecutive data field from the processor,” as
claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
However, when we consider claim 2, we reach an opposite
result. This claim does not require anything to receive a
consecutive data field from the processor. The graphics
processor 22, itself, in Diepstraten, may be both the means
for receiving a stream of data words with associated
consecutive addresses and the means for distributing that
stream of data words into VRAM at non-consecutive addresses.
With regard to the claim limitation of “evenly spaced
addresses,” we agree with the examiner’s reasoning, at page 5
of the answer, that Figure 2 of the reference clearly shows
the rows of region 60 within Diepstraten’s VRAM being evenly
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
6
spaced in that there are 385 addresses between the first and
second rows and there are also 385 addresses between the
second and third rows.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103.
With regard to claim 3, this claim contains the
requirement, as does claim 1, that something actually receives
the consecutive data field from the processor and distribute
it to non-consecutive addresses (in the case of claim 3, those
non-consecutive addresses are also evenly spaced). Therefore,
for the reasons supra, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
With regard to claims 4 through 7, we will not sustain
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 because the claims all
contain the limitation that the writing of character data into
video RAM be done “within 80 clock cycles…”
The examiner recognized that Diepstraten disclosed
nothing regarding the speed at which writing character data
into VRAM was performed but the examiner relied on Maruko for
the teaching of providing character data to a display memory
in the form of an 8 x 10 array of pixels. The examiner then
concluded that it would have been obvious to use the character
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
7
data described by Maruko in the display system of Diepstraten
and that “[t]he use of 80 clock cycles…would have been an
obvious expedient due to the eighty resultant pixels provided
by the 8x10 array” [answer-page 4].
The examiner’s rationale, in our view as well as in
appellant’s, is unreasonable. There is a clear implication in
the examiner’s rationale that Maruko teaches the writing of
one pixel per clock cycle, yet the examiner points to nothing
in Maruko, or anywhere else, to support such a position. We
agree with appellant that the “mere fact that the art teaches
an 8x10 array does not in any way teach or suggestion [sic,
suggest] how such array could be updated within eighty clock
cycles, as claimed” [brief-page 11, emphasis in original].
We will sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103.
This claim requires the copying of consecutive data words
to a range of consecutive addresses and means for receiving
the words intended for the range and causing the video
controller to actuate “a column of pixels…”
As broadly recited, Diepstraten’s graphics processor
copies a field of consecutive data words to some range of
consecutive addresses and those data words are then used to
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
8
cause a video controller to actuate pixels on a monitor 38.
When the graphic is a thin, straight vertical line, the
artisan would have recognized that a column of pixels is to be
actuated.
On the other hand, claim 9 is not so broad as the subject
matter of claim 8 in that the former requires that the means
for receiving the data words also distribute those words into
VRAM such that the consecutive bytes written by the processor
actuate pixels in a single column. Therefore, the language of
claim 9 would appear to require that the data words be
distributed in a VRAM in a particular manner so as to achieve
the particular result of pixel actuation in a single column
while claim 8, in contrast, only requires receiving data words
and, based on those words, causing the actuation of a column
of pixels in no particular manner. While Diepstraten is
clearly capable of actuating a column of pixels based on data
words from the
processor, there is no suggestion in Diepstraten that that
actuation comes about through any particular distribution of
the data words in VRAM 30.
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
9
Therefore, while we sustain the rejection of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 2 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 but we have not sustained the rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
' 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Richard Torczon )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Wayne P. Bailey
Symbios Logic Inc.
2001 Danfield Court, Mail Stop E
Appeal No. 95-4815
Application No. 08/065,387
10
Fort Collins, CO 80525