Appeal No. 97-0244
Application 08/042,357
We simply do not agree with the examiner's contention
that the referenced portions and figures of Kato support a
conclusion of obviousness of each of the rejected claims. The
examiner's approach appears to recognize certain deficiencies
within Kato as to certain claimed features, but the rationale
to supply these deficiencies relies too heavily in our view
upon undocumented or unproven states of the art or what the
artisan would have considered obvious to do. As such, we are
in agreement with appellants' view as to the rejection of
independent claims 2 and 5 on appeal that Kato does not teach
or suggest encoding the index file as recited in these claims,
as well as the consequent decoding operation in the last half
of independent claim 5 on appeal. In view of the forgoing, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, we have sustained the rejection of claims
3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but have reversed the rejection
of claims 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007