Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
is “not analogous.” More important, we find nothing in claim 1 to distinguish the “video
signal processing” from the video signal processing described by Press.
Appellant next asserts (id.) that the CPU in Press attempts to read the file in
various ways until one way works, rather than on a “definitive determination.” Again,
however, appellant does not point to anything in the claims setting forth the allegedly
distinguishing feature. Claims not at issue in the instant rejection (e.g., claim 5) recite
“means for determining the format” of a video signal. Instant claim 1, however, recites
“means for receiving a video signal” and “converting” the signal into one format or
another. We thus consider the argument to be not material to the invention as claimed.
Appellant further submits (id. at 21-22) that Press does not disclose directing the
signal to one of two alternative video processing subsystems. According to appellant,
“the CPU itself” of Press does the reading or scanning, and thus performs operations
using, in effect, a single subsystem.
The examiner relies, in the statement of the rejection and in the responsive
arguments in the Answer, on the description at column 9, line 54 through column 10,
line 10 of Press as teaching a first and second video subsystem as claimed. The
section describes, inter alia, compression of a graphic image. The data transfer device
may have compression/uncompression software in ROM memory. If the receiving
device is determined to be a FAX, the data transfer device may choose from three
different compression techniques for sending the data.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007