Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
adjacent stripe data with current data and, therefore, must be
relying on Knee for such memories. However, as detailed
above, such reliance on Knee is misplaced as Knee stores each
slice separately. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
its dependents, claims 2 through 5 and 35.
Similarly, for independent claims 6, 15, and 23 the
examiner fails to point out in either the Final Rejection or
the Answer what elements are relied upon for the claimed
memories. In the claims, each memory stores reconstructed
data with reconstructed adjacent data. The examiner (Final
Rejection, page 4) discusses how adjacent stripe information
must be accessed in decoding the current stripe in Knee.
However, adjacent data may be accessed for decoding the
current stripe without being stored therewith. In contrasting
appellant's storage of adjacent motion data with Retter's
"stor[age of] boundary synchronization data for still picture
reconstruction" (Answer, page 6), the examiner appears to
admit that Retter does not disclose storage of adjacent data
with current data and, therefore, must be relying on Knee for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007