Appeal No. 2004-1597
Application No. 09/383,889
Examiner further adds that the claims do not recite that “in
accordance with a schema” requires “partitioning and reordering
the data” (answer, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Atlas
Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943,
1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We observe that Breternitz relates to a method for
compression and decompression of data in a system having a cache
(col. 1, lines 6-8) and, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, divided
uncompressed code 20 into uncompressed cache line blocks 30 (col.
4, lines 30-33). Compression of the code is completed by
compressing the individual blocks to create compressed code 40
(col. 5, lines 22-25). Therefore, the uncompressed data is
divided into blocks or portions, wherein each block is later
individually compressed to create the compressed data.
Based on the analysis above, we note that a determination of
the issues on appeal before us turns on whether the claimed
“transforming the data in accordance with a schema” reads on the
dividing of the uncompressed code into cache line blocks of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007