Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
In response, the examiner points to Takahama, Fig. 2, elements
22-26, and Ellis at column 30, line 36-column 31, lines 36 and
Fig. 9. (answer at page 8). The examiner also points to Fig. 3,
element 30, of Ellis for the deletion of one or more frames in a
memorized segment based on the pattern matching process, and
further to Ellis at column 28, lines 66-column 29, line 53 and
column 42, line 45-column 44, line 2 for the associated text
(answer at page 9). We agree with the examiner's position.
Takahama does show the addition of the frames to memory 18
depending upon the successful matching of the incoming
information with the memorized segments, and Ellis shows the
concept of deleting the frames from the memory based on the
unsuccessful pattern matching of the memorized information with
the incoming segments. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 23 and 43 over Takahama and Ellis.
III. Claims 27 and 55
Appellants argue (brief at page 11) that "in the system of
the Ellis patent, the results of the comparisons of preceding
frames may be irrelevant. The only concern in that system is
whether the eight key signatures for a stored segment can be
found in an incoming segment. Comparisons made with non-matching
frames do not have any impact on the process." In response
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007