Appeal No. 1999-2021
Application No. 08/615,836
justification for making the combination of Arshi and Guttag to meet the recited limitations. For a
further clarification of our explanation in our decision, we first would like to point out that claim 1,
the representative claim, is a method claim and does not call for the structure limitations discussed
in the Request for Rehearing. Furthermore, Arshi does show a processor which extracts the motion
vectors and does perform the decompressing of the video data as noted by the examiner. Guttag on
the other hand, does show in Figure 2 a master processor 60 (that can be considered as the main
processor) which controls the graphics coprocessors 71-74. Therefore, to the extent of features
claimed in the method claim 1, the examiner’s position of combining Arshi with Guttag is proper
and meets the recited limitation.
For the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments in the Request
for Rehearing to the extent that our decision needs any modification to be made therein.
Accordingly, appellant’s request has been granted to the extent that our decision has been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007