Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant groups claims 3-5 together and argues claim 12
separately. Representative claims 3 and 12 recite that the
decoding means comprises a variable length decoder, an inverse
quantizer and an inverse discrete cosine transformer. The
examiner cites Iwamura as teaching that these components are
conventionally part of an MPEG decoding means. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan for the MPEG
decoder of Okada to have these conventional elements. With
respect to claims 3 and 12, appellant argues that Iwamura does
not overcome the deficiencies of Okada discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 10, respectively. Appellant does not
challenge the examiner’s finding that Iwamura teaches a decoding
means as recited in claims 3 and 12.
Since appellant’s only argument of substance is that
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007