Appeal No. 2003-0739
Application No. 09/319,763
selection of one data reduction function “inhibits” the non-
selected function.
It is our view, however, that even assuming, arguendo, that,
as asserted by the Examiner, selection of one of two functions
necessarily means inhibition of the non-selected function, the
specific claim language of independent claims 1 and 6 requires
that the recompression network be inhibited when the subsampling
network is activated. We find no disclosure in Canfield that
would satisfy this claim limitation since the recompression
network in Canfield is always active. While portions of
Canfield’s disclosure suggest that in certain situations the
subsampling network can be used together with the recompression
network to achieve increased data reduction, there is no
disclosure by Canfield of using the subsampling network without
the recompression network.
We note that it is proper for an Examiner to consider, not
only the specific teachings of a reference, but inferences a
skilled artisan might draw from them. It is equally important,
however, that the teachings of prior art references be considered
in their entirety. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968); W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. V. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007