Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
database 412) and an unsuccessful comparison (i.e. unacceptable)
between a second portion of the incoming information stream and
the memorized segment ...." We note that the appellants'
argument is merely conclusory. Moreover, we are persuaded by the
examiner's response that Ellis does show the recited limitations
of claim 34.
VI. Claims 35 and 48
Appellants make a merely conclusory statement (brief at page
12) that "[c]laim 35 comprises a combination of the features
recited in each of claims 33 and 34, namely the modification of
the memorized segment by adding and deleting frames." The
examiner responds (answer at page 9) that "since the subject
matter of claims 33 and 34 are fully disclosed by the references,
the combination of these features are likewise disclosed ...."
For the rationale presented above regarding claims 33 and 34, we
sustain the rejection of claims 35 and 48 over Takahama and
Ellis.
VII. Claims 36 and 49
After the review of the appellants' argument (brief at page
13) and the examiner's response (answer at page 9), we are of the
view that claim 36 is directed to a particular type of data
structure as to how the frames of data are arranged in the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007