Appeal No. 1997-0653
Application No. 08/140,043
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Yurt et al. (Yurt) 5,132,992 Jul. 21, 1992
(Filed Jan. 07, 1991)
Claims 63-98 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yurt.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed Aug. 6, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed May 8, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed Oct. 7, 1996) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Throughout the brief appellants argue that the examiner has not properly interpreted
the teachings of Yurt with respect to the compression and transmission of data to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007