Appeal No. 1998-3362
Application No. 08/516,773
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 15, and claims 2 and 16 dependent
thereon, over Katayama is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, and 20 in
which the Strohacker and Hattori references are alternatively
added to Katayama, we do not sustain this rejection as well.
It is apparent from the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 5
and 7) that Strohacker and Hattori are relied on solely to
address the claimed use of shift registers in data compression
systems. We find nothing, however, in the disclosures of
Strohacker and Hattori which would overcome the innate
deficiencies of Katayama discussed supra.
In conclusion, since the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of independent claims 1 and 15 and claims 2-4, 6, 16-18, and
20 dependent thereon, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 15-18, and
20 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007