Appeal No. 1998-1225
Application 08/542,884
examiner asserts that all the claimed elements are disclosed
by Galvin [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant basically argues
that neither the detection means, the differential pulse
generating means, the phase-locked loop having a phase
comparator nor the activation pulse generator are disclosed in
the manner recited in the claims and are not interconnected as
set forth in the claimed invention [brief, pages 6-9 and reply
brief]. The examiner’s response is to explain in more detail
how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of Galvin
[answer, pages 5-7].
After a careful consideration of the record before us, we
agree with appellant that the examiner has essentially failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for the
reasons set forth by appellant in the briefs. The examiner’s
purported attempt to correlate elements of the claimed
invention with elements of Galvin is not convincing. The
invention of independent claims 1 and 6 cannot literally be
read on the disclosure of Galvin. Instead, the examiner has
pointed to features of Galvin which appear to be similar to
elements recited in the claimed invention. All the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007