Appeal No. 1998-0879
Application 08/251,730
is nothing in Kantner which indicates that the subsequent
headers use the information specified in the escape code.
Third, we observe that the "run length" escape code in
Kantner is very similar to the run length escape code
described in Appellants' specification (p. 21, lines 10-16)
with respect to figure 5. However, this disclosed escape
code is not the "stream interpretation" escape code which is
claimed.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation
as to independent claims 1, 9, 17, 21, and 29. The
anticipation rejection of claims 1-29 is therefore reversed.
Independent claims 30 and 32 contain similar limitations to
those discussed in the anticipation rejection. Bhargava,
applied in the obviousness rejection of claims 30-33, does
not cure the deficiencies of Kantner. Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection of claims 30-33 is reversed. In
summary, the rejections of claims 1-33 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007