Appeal No. 2005-0444
Application No. 10/025,671
page 16) and has nothing to do with compressing and decompressing
of pixels of non-continuous tone data (reply brief, page 5). The
Examiner characterizes the decompressing process of Shannon that
extracts the 0 to 3 pixels from the Sync Byte (Shannon, col. 10,
lines 43-46) as the claimed decompressed data “to produce four
pixels of non-continuous tone data” (answer, page 6).
We agree with Appellant that the process disclosed by
Shannon does not include tone information in compressing and
decompressing processes. Furthermore, as discussed above, Hyatt’s
process of filling pixel information lacks the specific claimed
image data that is compressed by discarding pixels along a
direction parallel to an edge while maintaining pixels along a
direction perpendicular to the edge. As the combination of prior
art provides no teaching or suggestion with respect to the
claimed features discussed above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 13, 14 and 18 and therefore, their 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection over Shannon and Hyatt cannot be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007