Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Dr. Koopman also criticizes the rejection on other grounds, none of which is persuasive.
2 His complaint that the examiner failed to identify which benefit he is relying on in the nearly full
3 column of cited text, 2d Koopman Decl. at 172, para. 364, is unconvincing. Dr. Koopman
4 should have assumed that the examiner is relying on each of the several benefits discussed in
5 those lines. Dr. Koopman's assertion that Giltner's compression technique "is grossly ineffective
6 to use on the vast majority of AV data, including without limitation digital color images,
7 monochrome color images, and audio data," Id. at 79, para. 168, ignores the fact that the
8 rationale of the rejection does not require compressing and decompressing such data. Instead,
9 the examiner has argued the obviousness of using Giltner's plural compression techniques (i.e.,
10 dictionary addressing and Huffman encoding) to compress the object and message data that
11 Filepp compresses using only one those techniques (i.e., Huffman coding). Dr. Koopman's
12 discussion of the differences between Giltner's color digital video and color television pictures
13 likewise has no relevance to the rejection. 2d Koopman Decl. at 79-80, para. 170.
14 We hold that it would have been obvious to modify Filepp so as to employ the two
15 compression techniques disclosed in Giltner in order to reduce the amount of data to be
16 transmitted and thus are affirming the rejection of claim 11 on this ground.
17 N. Rejections of claim 11 based on Yurt
18 (1) The effect of the Rule 131 declarations
19
20 The Rule 131 declarations by inventor Anthony Rozmanith and by noninventor Egon
21 Fabian (a software consultant and programmer) assert conception of the claimed subject matter
22
- 48 -
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007