Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
sets of the instant invention may be related or unrelated to the information stream,
which means that either way would meet the limitation argued (but not claimed) by
appellant.
Accordingly, while we have not sustained the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toyokawa, we do sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Feng.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Endoh in view of Crayson.
The examiner clearly sets forth the application of Endoh to claims 2-9 and 11, at
pages 6-8 of the answer, adding Crayson for a showing of a bit stream consisting of an
unrecognized signal and a symbolic code. The examiner contends that it would have
been obvious to provide for an unrecognized signal in Endoh since “this can provide for
using fewer groups of data, as well as fewer libraries, thus providing for less data to
transmit and for a simpler system” [answer-page 7]. The examiner appears to have set
forth a reasonable case for obviousness, shifting the burden of proof to appellant.
For his part, appellant argues that Endoh fails to provide for generic objects in a
library as defined in the claims. However, “generic objects” is not defined or given any
special meaning in the claims and the examiner has held that Endoh discloses “generic
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007