Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 16
Application No. 08/125,590
and by doing that the size of the look up table is clearly
reduced.” (Id.)
The examiner errs in determining the content of the prior
art. Uramoto teaches a coefficient matrix representation (5)
that “is horizontally symmetrical with respect to columns.”
Col. 6, ll. 39-40. Based on this, the representation (5) can
be transformed into another representation (6) comprising two,
smaller coefficient matrices. Id. at ll. 41-43. “[T]he
number of times of multiplication for acquiring output data yj
is reduced to a half in relation (6) as compared to relation
(5).” Id. at ll. 60-62. The examiner does not show how the
reference’s general teaching of transforming a matrix based on
symmetry would have suggested the detailed claim limitations
concerning symmetry. Duhamel does not cure this deficiency.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 14-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007