Appeal No. 1998-2989
Application No. 08/566,987
for lossless transmission of data and Bhargava discloses the use of a buffer control 122
which would have controlled a buffer memory which would have been a precollation
memory. (See answer at page 7.) Appellant argues that it is not apparent where the buffer
control 122 is characterized as a precollation memory for the storage of compressed
image data. We disagree with appellant wherein the buffer control would necessarily
control a buffer memory which would have been a memory for storing the data. The
language of claim 13 is quite broad whereas a buffer memory would have met the
language of claim 13. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14 and 21.
With respect to claim 4, the examiner relies upon the combination of Bhargava and
Lund. Appellant argues that while Lund teaches mapping a 300 dpi to 600 dpi image
conversion, it is not indicated where either teaches or suggests the image compression of
the bit replicated image. (See brief at page 17.) We disagree with appellant wherein
Bhargava teaches the compression of an image, where the image may be of any
resolution whether bit replicated or not. Therefore, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use
the methodology of Bhargava with bit replicated images as recited in the language of
claim 4. Appellant argues that the examiner is reconstructing appellant’s invention. (See
brief at page 18.) We disagree with appellant, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007