Appeal No. 2002-2164
Application No. 09/067,599
matter of claims 16 and 20 because Dosiere only allows checking of one pattern, which
is a small synchronization pattern in a data stream. (Brief at 5.)
Representative claim 16 recites that the marked patterns are “fewer than the total
number of patterns in said first memory.” Even if we were to agree that Dosiere “only
allows checking of one pattern,” we find nothing in claim 16 that recites “checking” of
more than one pattern. Dosiere discloses, in Figure 2a, at least six patterns (82, B1,
AC, FF, C1, and DA) that are greater in number than the three marked patterns (1,
ACFF, C1D; see col. 6, l. 49 - col. 7, l. 23). Dosiere thus meets the broad terms of claim
16.
Instant claim 36 stands rejected under Section 102 (Answer at 7), but also
appears to be treated in the Section 103 rejection (e.g., Answer at 10).1 In any event,
we agree with appellants there is no showing of disclosure or suggestion of the subject
matter of claim 36. The portions of Dosiere relied upon by the Section 102 rejection
refers to pointer values (e.g., 0001 in Fig. 2b), bit pointers (e.g., 4 in Fig. 2b), and
bitstream pointer values. None, however, include mask bits, as required by instant
claim 36.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, 20, and
33, but do not do not sustain the rejection of claim 36, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Dosiere.
1 Since claim 37 recites “eight patterns,” and claim 38 recites “groups of 4 mask bits,” it is
apparent that the Section 103 rejection is applied against claims 37 and 38.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007