Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gray in view of APA.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The only dispute between appellant and the examiner is
with regard to the claimed "frequency" limitation.
It is the examiner’s position that Gray teaches a
respective frequency stored under each address. As evidence,
the examiner cites column 6, lines 42-67, of Gray. The
examiner contends that that section of the patent refers to an
input complex data being converted into a pixel descriptor
word and a pixel address word. Lines 54-56 of the cited
portion does recite that the "frequency data is applied to the
address multiplexer 24 so that frequency is available to
determine data pixel position."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007