Appeal No. 96-2696
Application 08/167,415
that a header is properly merged with a valid data word rather
than with extraneous data, or, conversely, that data words are
properly merged with a valid associated header rather than
with extraneous header bits (col. 1, lines 58-63). As with
Sun, the examiner (Answer at 9) contends that the term
"invalid code" is broad enough to read on any non-information
data or portion of the header data and thus reads on the GOP
(group of pictures) header data. This ignores claim 13's
recitation that the invalid data is used to "prevent[]
underflow of data in a send buffer in an image coding
apparatus," which is not true of Acampora's GOP headers.
Acampora fails to disclose or suggest using such invalid
codes, let alone forming them with the specific format recited
in the claim.
The § 102(e) rejection of claim 13 over Acampora is
therefore reversed, as are the other § 102(e) rejections based
on that reference, i.e., the rejection of independent claims
17 and 21, which recite limitations similar to those of claim
13, and the rejection of dependent claims 14, 15, 18, 19, and
23.
REVERSED
- 17 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007