Appeal No. 1997-0653
Application No. 08/140,043
subscribers. We disagree with appellants. Rather, the examiner has essentially read the
figure 2b on the claimed limitations instead of the figures 2a and 2b which the examiner
references in the rejection. (See answer at page 3.) With the examiner using compressed
data library 118 of Yurt as the random access data storage, then the transmission format
conversion CPU 119 must perform the conversion of the compressed stored data to a
different format. Appellants argue that Yurt does not teach or suggest that the
transmission format conversion CPU 119 compresses the data using a different standard.
(See brief at page 13.) We agree with appellants.
The examiner maintains that the transmission format conversion CPU 119 would
“tailor the data into a format best suited for the particular channel.” (See answer at pages
3-4.) Appellants argue that Yurt does not disclose the compression of data in the
transmission format conversion CPU 119 because the disclosure of Yurt with respect to
this element only contains 131 words. (See brief at page 15 and Appendix II.) Appellants
further argue that the declaration of Mark C. Koz, one of the inventors, addresses the
compression of data using a second different standard and the
examiner’s asserted bandwidth motivation. (See brief at page 16 and reply brief at page
4.) The examiner has not addressed the evidence presented in the declaration. While we
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007