Appeal No. 1997-0653
Application No. 08/140,043
agree with the examiner that the transmission format conversion CPU 119 would tailor the
data, in our view, it is unreasonable to equate this conversion or encoding for formatting
purposes as a compression of the data according to a second different standard as
recited in the language of claim 63. Furthermore, the examiner's motivation for further
compression by the transmission format conversion CPU 119 has been rebutted by
appellants, but the examiner has not responded thereto. Therefore, we accept appellants’
evidence that skilled artisans would not have been motivated to have the processing by the
transmission format conversion CPU 119 perform a second compression using a different
compression standard as recited in the language of claim 63. Therefore, the examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 63 or its dependent
claims 64-84. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims. Accordingly, since
independent claim 85 contains limitations similar to those of claim 63, we also cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 85 nor its dependent claims 86-98.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 63-98 under
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007