Appeal No. 96-1727
Application 08/130,575
brief on appeal relating to the image data extension unit recitation in independent claim 4
on appeal, we generally agree with the examiner’s response as set forth at pages 9 and
10 of the answer. It goes without saying that the image data extension unit is not recited in
means-plus-function format in this claim and the examiner has clearly pointed out in
addition to our own above correlation that the claimed decoding function is met by the
reference. There is no recitation in this claim that any compression/ decompression
operations occur.
In summary, we have reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4 through 9
and instituted our own rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 in view of Nishi alone.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131,
53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be considered final
for purposes of judicial review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007