Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754
As to the remarks at page 2 of the reply brief, it is independent claim 1 that
requires that the respective bits within any given class be contiguous, whereas the
respective classes do not have to contiguous with each other in the context of claim 1.
Additionally, there is no requirement that the frames themselves be contiguous with
respect to each other, such as in independent claim 17 on appeal. Appellants’
observation at page 2 of the reply brief that there is no requirement in Fazel that each
of the particular blocks of bits necessarily comprises contiguous bits of a frame is
therefore misplaced.
Lastly, as to the separate arguments in the brief with respect to dependent
claims 21 and 22 at pages 8 and 9 of the principal brief on appeal to the extent they are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fazel only, we agree with the examiner’s analysis
in the statement of the rejection at page 11 of the answer as well as the responsive
arguments at pages 17 through 19 of the answer. Appellants’ own specification
contemplates at specification page 4, lines 5 through 8 and the discussion of any type
digital information coding at specification page 13, line 18 through page 14, line 2 that
appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a variety of applications of use. The
examiner has made similar arguments in the noted portions of the answer even through
the examiner has utilized to some extent the highly disfavored term “design choice” or
“design option” as characterizing his position. But what is noteworthy of the
examiner’s analysis, however, is that the examiner has explained
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007