Appeal No. 1998-0220
Application No. 08/297,437
to the claims, other than relying on the arguments presented for the independent claims
(“claims 1 and 30”), is that “Kobayashi...does not appear to teach or even suggest that a
first dimension filter may be selected as the input for a second dimension filter based upon
the class of image represented by the digital signals....” (Brief, pages 26-27.) However,
as the statement of rejection is set out in the Answer, and as the examiner further explains
on pages 19 and 20 of the Answer, Kobayashi has not been relied upon for all the
teachings that it is alleged to lack. As such, appellants have not shown that the combined
teachings would not have suggested the subject matter as a whole of claims 33 and 34.
We note that appellants submit arguments with respect to claim 24 in the Reply
Brief. The arguments are untimely, since they are not in response to any new points of
argument in the Answer. (The Final Rejection (page 5) incorporated by reference the
rejection set forth in Paper No. 18, in which claim 24 was rejected on pages 5 and 6 using
the same language repeated on pages 7 and 8 of the Answer.) See 37 CFR §
1.192(a)(“Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, unless good cause is
shown.”). Moreover, it is of no moment that the examiner has not shown the allegedly
lacking teachings in the reference. As set forth in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of
the Answer, it is appellants’ prior art Figure 2 which supplies the teachings for the
“means...for reading the stored output signals from the selected context buffer,” and the
combined teachings of the prior art which suggest the “means for selecting.”
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007