Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
memory. We find that the examiner has not made a prima facie
case of meeting the recited limitation of claim 36 (i.e. "control
logic for marking a frame adjacent to a frame to be deleted from
a memorized segment as a known boundary of the segment; and
control logic for preventing the addition of information frames
to a terminal portion of a memorized segment which has been
marked as a known boundary point."). The examiner's mere
assertion that Takahama and Ellis teach the concept of appending
newly matched segments to the end of data base 412 [fig. 3 of
Ellis] is not sufficient to disclose or teach the particular data
structure claimed in these claims. Therefore, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 36 and 49 over Takahama and
Ellis.
In conclusion, we have sustained the obviousness rejection
of claims 21-27, 30-35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46-48, 50-52, 54 and 55;
however, we have not sustained the obviousness rejection of
claims 36 and 49.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007