Appeal No. 1998-3362
Application No. 08/516,773
It is further our view, that even assuming, arguendo, the
correctness of the Examiner’s assertion that serial read out
from the frame memories is taking place in Katayama, such fact
alone does not address the issue of obviousness with respect
to the specific limitations of the appealed independent claims
1 and 15. Each of claims 1 and 15, besides a recitation of
the serial read out of video data from frame buffers, requires
the formation of the serially read data into groups as well as
the transmitting of the formed groups in ordered succession.
While the Examiner has asserted that the sub sampling unit 6
and orthogonal conversion unit 8 in Katayama perform these
functions, we find no description in Katayama that would
support the Examiner’s conclusion that grouping and
transmission in ordered succession is taking place. In order
for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103, we would need to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the
factual basis of the rejection before us.
In re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), rehearing denied,
390 U.S. 1000 (1968). Accordingly, since the Examiner has not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007