Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 13
Application No. 08/125,590
significant portion having a value other than zero.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
The allegation does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the examiner’s rejection
of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we address claims
14-23 and 26.
Claims 14-23 and 26
Regarding the obviousness of claims 14-23 and 26, the
appellants argue, “there is no ... suggestion found anywhere
in McMillan, Jr. et al. or any other reference presently of
record for dividing IDCT input coefficients into a plurality
of symmetry classes and addressing look up tables as recited
in the claims directed to that aspect of the invention related
to IDCTs.” (Appeal Br. at 9.) The examiner replies, “The
symmetry characteristic of the present invention are clearly
disclosed in cols. 6, 11 & 12 of Uramoto ....” (Examiner’s
Answer at 8.) We agree with the appellants.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007