Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
In arguing claims 12 and 13, appellant urges that “[d]espite the reliance on
patterns unrelated to the information content, the system generates the corresponding
generic object that was transmitted as a symbol, and generates an information
sequence combining the generic feature with the unrecognized information portion”
[principal brief-page 7].
Once again, we point out that the instant claims are not so narrow as to limit the
“generic object” to patterns or objects “unrelated to the information content.” In
accordance with the broad claim language, a generic object may or may not be related
to the information content of a signal. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive of
nonobviousness.
While we recognize that there may, in fact, be unobvious and patentable
differences between the instant disclosed invention and that taught by the applied
references, we are unconvinced of nonobviousness of the instant claimed subject
matter based on the arguments presented by appellant.
We have not sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Toyokawa but we have sustained the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Feng and we have sustained the rejections of
claims 2-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007