Appeal No. 2004-1597
Application No. 09/383,889
the two portions be separately compressed, reads on the step of
compressing individual cache line blocks of Breternitz (col. 5,
lines 22-25), as explained above. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 over Breternitz is
sustained.
Turning now to claims 3, 4, 9 and 10, we note that these
claims require that the transformation step includes the step of
“reordering the data into column major order,” which requires a
different reordering than placing the data in cache line blocks
of Breternitz. We agree with Appellants that dividing and
reordering data in cache line blocks does not disclose that the
data is necessarily reordered into column major order. The
Examiner neither points to any specific teaching in the
reference, other than to the part of Breternitz related to cached
compression (col. 2, lines 40-52), nor do we find any, that would
have taught or suggested the claimed features.
In view of the discussion above, we find that the claimed
“the transformation step further comprises the step of reordering
the data into column major order” is absent in the data
compression method of Breternitz. Accordingly, since the
Examiner has failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007