Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
interpretation that a group G1, G2 and G3, together, form a
first group of matrices which then may be further resolved
into separate G1, G2 and G3 constant matrices is, in our view,
unreasonable since the lumping of three of the constant
matrices together and then separating them does not constitute
a "further resolving," as claimed.
We also note, that with regard to some of the dependent
claims where the examiner admits that the reference does not
disclose "image" data but that "transforming is the same
whether the signal represents image or audio data," and that
the reference does not disclose DCT or IDCT but that
"transforming is the same whether it is Walsh, DCT, or IDCT,"
such reasoning by the examiner might have some place in a
rejection under
35 U.S.C. 103, but such reasoning is not valid in a rejection
based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Since Watari does not disclose or suggest each and every
claimed limitation, we will not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 102(b).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007