Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
same layer. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that “Examiner has
failed to establish that Yamaguchi meets each and every
limitation of the rejected claims” is persuasive and we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 14 and 28 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 14 and 28.
With respect to claim 14, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the admitted prior art solely to teach an H.263
compliant coder and the requirements thereof [answer, page 5].
The admitted prior art in combination with the Yamaguchi et al
reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Yamaguchi et al noted
above with respect to claim 11. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007