Appeal No. 2003-0739
Application No. 09/319,763
that this would necessarily mean an inhibition of the
recompression function since no recompression network may
actually be present in the system to be inhibited.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, since we are of the opinion that the prior
art applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 6, nor of claims 2-5, 7, and 8 dependent thereon.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/dpv
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007