Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The only limitation
in dispute with respect to the anticipation rejection of
claims 6, 15, and 23 is a memory which stores both
reconstructed data and reconstructed adjacent data. The
examiner states (Answer, page 4) that Knee includes frame
delays 18, 20, and 22, each connected to a decoder, and each
serving "to store and supply both reconstructed data and
reconstructed adjacent data." The examiner contends that each
frame delay supplies adjacent data as the previous store (FDi-
1) and supplies reconstructed data as the current store (FD ). i
The examiner concludes that such frame delays meet the claimed
limitation of memories which store both reconstructed data and
reconstructed adjacent data.
Figure 3 of Knee and the accompanying text on page 3
indicate that frame delays 18, 20, and 22 provide previously
compensated data from stripe i of the previous frame, and from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007