Ex parte GO - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                 Paper No. 22         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                                   Ex parte SHIYU GO                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1998-1895                                 
                              Application No. 08/425,990                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from                
          the  rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-19, 26-33 and 79-86.                 
          We reverse.                                                                 


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to                       
          compressive image encoding and decoding.  Compression is                    
          essential to efficient storage and transmission of digitized                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007