Appeal No. 2004-0515
Application No. 09/400,960
adding (ADD) to the coded modified data (CMD) the set
of parameters (PAR) for decoding the coded data (CD) if the
result is satisfactory or, if the result is not
satisfactory, establishing (ADP) a new set of parameters
(APAR) and adding (ADD) the new set of parameters (APAR) to
the coded modified data (CMD).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Rasky et al. (Rasky) 5,278,871 Jan. 11, 1994
Claims 1 and 2, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rasky.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 12, filed
December 16, 2002) and Answer (Paper No. 13, mailed February 11,
2003) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007