Appeal No. 1998-0220
Application No. 08/297,437
In the Second Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 32) the examiner
indicates that, subsequent to entry of amendments after the Final Rejection, earlier
rejections of claims 3-7, 12-16, 19-23, 25-29, and 32 have been withdrawn, and those
claims now stand allowed.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 22) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 27) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 26) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 29) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
Appellants submit arguments in the Brief directed to independent claim 1, which we
will consider as representative of all the independent claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellants also submit arguments in support of dependent claims 2, 10, and 31, and in
support of dependent claim 33, which is subject to a different ground of rejection. We
consider the appellants’ arguments in turn for each of the above-noted claims.
The examiner offers the APA and Thompson as evidence of the obviousness of the
subject matter of claims 1, 2, 8-11, 17, 18, 24, 30, and 31. The APA, as shown in
appellants’ Figure 2 and described in the specification at the paragraph bridging pages 8
and 9, is the prior art approach for implementation of two-dimensional digital filters, with
two independent filter channels 60 and 62. Two slow scan (first dimension) filters 66a and
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007