Appeal No. 1998-1110
Application No. 08/391,263
Appellants' claimed limitations. In particular, Appellants
argue that Nickerson et al. fails to teach compression or
decompression of picture elements, as claimed in claims 1-5
and 8-10. Appellants further argue that Nickerson et al. fails
to teach parallel aggregation, rather than averaging, of data
elements, as claimed in claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 (or parallel
separation in the case of image decompression, as claimed in
claims 3 and 5). Appellants argue that Daher and Adams et al.
fail to teach the concept of parallel aggregation assertedly
missing from Nickerson et al., as claimed in claims 1-5 and 8-
10. Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly
relied on unsubstantiated conclusions to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
In the answer, the Examiner argues at pages 8-9 that the
prior art teaches the claimed method and that the combination
of Nickerson et al., Daher, and Adams et al. is proper. In
particular, the Examiner asserts on page 8 that although
Nickerson et al. does not teach compressing image data, i.e.
picture elements, or parallel aggregation rather than
averaging, the Daher reference teaches "the row and column
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007