Appeal No. 2004-0519
Application No. 09/394,199
system, compressing the image data and transmitting the image data via a wire-less
communication link.”
Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief:
Nahi and Stoye do not teach or suggest the limitation in claim 22 of a base
station that compresses the raw picture information that would normally go to a
local display of a computer system. Appellant submits that the transceiver 18 of
Nahi does not perform data compression. It is also submitted that Nahi does not
suggest that the transceiver 18 could perform data compression.
Further, appellants assert that Nahi teaches software in the host computer
system performs the data compression.
In response to this argument by the appellants, the examiner states, on page 4 of
the answer:
First of all, the raw picture information as claimed is nothing more then
[sic, than] uncompress [sic] picture information (see page 7, lines 18-31 of the
specification). Secondly, Nahi teaches compressing picture information before
transmit [sic] it to a remote display by the base station (see col. 4, lines 27-35).
Although Nahi does not disclose compressing the picture information in the base
station, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
compressing can be done in the computer system or in the base station.
While we agree with the examiner’s statement that the claimed raw picture data
is uncompressed data, and the examiner’s statement that Nahi does not disclose
compressing data in a base station, we disagree that it would have been obvious that
the data compression be done in the base station. An obviousness analysis
commences with a review and consideration of all the pertinent evidence and
arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007