Appeal No. 96-3646
Application 08/136,254
conditions, besides the one employed in the references, were known in the art. The examiner contends
that any compression or interpolation process would be “chosen depending upon said one condition.”
Appellant argues that the claims require a set of conditions, not just one condition.
We agree with appellant. Because the claims call for a process “chosen depending upon said
one condition” of a set of conditions, a reference which suggests a system using only one condition does
not suggest the claimed subject matter.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-26 is not sustained.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/dal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007