Appeal No. 2004-1597
Application No. 09/383,889
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that claims
1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 stand or fall together as one group while claims
3, 4, 9 and 10 stand or fall as another group (brief, page 4).
In accordance with this grouping, we will limit our review of the
appeal to claims 1 and 3 as the representative claims of their
respective groups.
Appellants argue that the claimed limitation of
“transforming the data in accordance with a schema,” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 7, is defined at page 5, lines 19-21
of the specification, and requires “partitioning and reordering
the data in a manner that optimizes the compression of the input
data” (brief, page 5). Referring to Figures 1 and 2 of
Breternitz, Appellants point out that the relied upon teachings
actually relate to compressing instructions instead of data, to
the pre-compression activity that is only of the conventional
type and to segmenting the memory into blocks that is not
partitioning and reordering the data (brief, page 7).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the pre-compression activity of dividing the uncompressed
code into blocks of Breternitz discloses the claimed transforming
the data in accordance with a schema (answer, page 5). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007