Appeal No. 2003-0739
Application No. 09/319,763
cert denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In particular, in order for us
to accept the Examiner’s conclusions in the present factual
situation, we would have to improperly selectively ignore
significant portions of the disclosure of the Canfield reference.
Lastly, we address the Examiner’s comments (Answer, pages 5
and 6) directed to Appellants’ argument that Canfield “teaches
away” from the claimed invention by suggesting (column 3, lines
42 and 43) that “horizontal decimation without compression is not
a recommended practice for this system.” In the Examiner’s view,
despite Canfield’s disparaging of using decimation (subsampling)
without compression (or recompression), the limitations of claims
1 and 6 are satisfied since the disclosure of subsampling without
compression does in fact exist in Canfield.
We do not find this assertion by the Examiner to be
persuasive since it ignores the specific language of the claims.
In our view, appealed claims 1 and 6 do not simply require
performance of subsampling without recompression as the Examiner
would have us believe but, rather, as claimed, the recompression
network must be selectively inhibited when the subsampling
network is activated. In other words, even if one of ordinary
skill were to perform the non-recommended procedure of Canfield,
i.e., subsampling without recompression, there is no evidence
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007