Appeal No. 1998-0752
Application 08/389,096
determining the numerical differences between adjacent sample
amplitude ratio values, and comparing the set of ratio
difference values to previously stored sets to determine the
"event" recognized. Therefore, we find that the prior art
relied upon by the Examiner fails to teach the limitations of
claim 8, for the same reasons specified with respect to claim
1. Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 12 of the Brief, Appellant argues that claim 10
is patentable because the step of setting threshold values of
differences between adjacent sample amplitude ratio values, in
order to identify whether the slope is rising, falling, or
unchanged, is not taught by the combination of Toyama, Kao,
and AAPA advanced by the Examiner.
Upon a careful review of the references applied by the
Examiner, we fail to find that any one of Toyama, Kao, or AAPA
teach the setting of threshold values of the difference
between normalized sample amplitudes which define whether
their slope is rising, falling, or unchanging. Toyama merely
teaches a two comparator system, in which one comparator
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007