Appeal No. 2004-0515
Application No. 09/400,960
decision block 107 whether to continue decoding or to re-encode
the incoming data, we find no support in Rasky for such a
conclusion.
Rasky does indeed suggest (column 6, lines 33-40) that after
a number of iterations there will no longer be any errors left to
correct. There is no indication, however, as to how or where a
determination is made whether a satisfactory result will be
obtained if the original set of parameters used for decoding is
also used for decoding the coded modified data. In our view,
even assuming, arguendo, the Examiner’s summarization of the
operation of Rasky is correct, we fail to see how this would
satisfy the language of the claims on appeal. The Examiner must
not only make requisite findings, based on the evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, in order for us to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to
impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007