Appeal No. 1998-0879
Application 08/251,730
limitation although Appellants' escape code is disclosed to
work differently.
The Examiner correctly states that Appellants' second
argument is that "[Kantner] fails to disclose using byte
headers subsequent to the escape codes in the compressed
bit-stream for delineating the desired compression
technique" (EA6). The Examiner provides a long and complex
discussion of how Kantner can be interpreted to meet the
limitation, which we do not find persuasive.
First, the Examiner erroneously finds byte header 68 to
be a "trailing byte header" (EA7), which is a function of
the previous quadruple of elementary units. It is stated
(EA7): "While Kantner discloses accessing the leading byte
header [42] for determining the coding technique placement
for the first quadruple which follows, the reference appears
to be silent on the function of the trailing byte header for
anything, as would be required by the claims in question"
(underlining added). Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
the encoding process inserts a trailing byte header which is
a function of the previous quadruple of elementary units.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007