Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
it. Accordingly, since, in our view, the prima facie case of
obviousness has not been successfully rebutted, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
We reach an opposite result with regard to the rejection
of claims 40 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, with
regard to these claims, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
With regard to claim 40, which requires decompressing a
region of the item buffer surrounding the pixel location
wherein the region of the item buffer “is smaller than said
item buffer,” the examiner contends that the decompression may
be construed, broadly, to cover the entire item buffer which
certainly includes the region of said item buffer surrounding
said pixel location. The examiner’s reasoning is misplaced
because claim 40 explicitly calls for the region to be
“smaller than said item buffer.” Accordingly, it is
unreasonable for the examiner to construe the decompression to
cover the entire item buffer.
With regard to claim 41, this claim recites identifying a
second area within the image selectable by a user and storing
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007