Appeal No. 2004-0913
Application No. 08/940,760
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 23) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 30) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
29) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Bresalier uses the term “transcoding,” as the examiner notes, to include
processes such as encoding, decoding, error detection, and error correction. See
Bresalier col. 1, ll. 16-24; col. 4, ll. 51-57. The rejection relies on Suzuki, at least for
purposes of the instant independent claims, solely for the teaching of adding error
control information to transmitted data.
Appellants argue that an examiner’s finding with respect to Bresalier is in error.
In appellants’ view, Bresalier does not teach selecting a transcoding technique and an
error control scheme to format the data based on the data type, as required in
substance by all the claims on appeal. In the examiner’s reading of the reference,
Bresalier teaches that each of a variety of different data types requires a different
transcoding technique, relying on column 4, lines 48 through 52 of the reference.
(Answer at 3.) Elsewhere in the Answer (at 8), the examiner contends that Bresalier
“inherently” discloses selecting the transcoding and error control scheme based on the
determined type of data.
We find that Bresalier discloses:
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007