Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
various coherences of dependent claim 5 and the scaling functions
of claim 6 (mirrored in claims 15 and 16) on the basis of
O’Rourke alone. Therefore, the examiner in our view is free to
institute a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103
on the basis of O’Rourke alone and/or in view of Tekalp or some
other available prior art.
In closing, we have affirmed the examiner’s separate
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1 through 3, 11
through 13, and 21 through 26. On the other hand, we have
reversed the rejection of their respective dependent claims 4
through 6, 8, 14 through 16, and 18. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007