Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
18 is modified by continuously adding incoming information frames
10 to the memorized segment 18 based on a successful comparison
(22-26) between a portion of the incoming information stream 10
and a portion of the memorized segment (e.g. Fig. 7)." We agree
with the examiner's position. Moreover, we note that the
appellants' argument is not commensurate with the recited
limitations of claim 33. In addition, we are of the view that
any segment of information is inherently going to have a terminal
frame associated with it. Therefore, the segment of information
memorized in Takahama or in Ellis would have a terminal frame
associated with that segment. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 33 and 46.
V. Claims 34 and 47
Appellants argue (brief at page 12) that "in accordance with
the procedure of claims 34 and 47, therefore, these non-matching
frames are deleted, so that only the portions of the memorized
and incoming segments which match are retained in the memory.
Again, the cited references do not disclose this concept ...."
The examiner responds (brief at page 9) that "Fig. 3, element 30,
of Ellis et al teaches such well known concept based upon a
successful comparison (i.e., acceptable) between one portion of
the incoming information frame and the memorized segment (e.g.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007