Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
of Richter would not benefit from data compression for the
reason noted by the examiner.
In summary, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 1. We have
considered each of appellants’ arguments with respect to
claim 1, but we are not persuaded by any of these arguments
that the examiner’s rejection is in error. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 20, 23 and
31-33.
Appellants argue claims 2, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 24, 29,
30 and 34 as a second group of claims [brief, page 4]. With
respect to representative claim 2, the examiner acknowledges
that the combination of Richter and Franaszek does not teach
determining if there is enough free space in the memory to
add a new entry. The examiner asserts that making this
determination was well known in the art and that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to make this determination
[answer, page 5].
Appellants argue that since claim 1 recites compressed
data, the estimate of free space is non-trivial to obtain.
Thus, appellants assert that this estimate is not a simple
check of unallocated free space [brief, page 8]. The
examiner responds that appellants’ arguments do not show how
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007