Ex Parte NI et al - Page 10
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2004 > Ex Parte NI et al - Page 10
Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
attempts to rely on “time windows” in Sauer (see page 5 of the
answer) as a suggestion of the limitation recited in claim 6 but
we do not find these “time windows” to be suggestive, in any
manner, of the two different types of characters claimed.
Accordingly, no prima facie case of obviousness has been shown
regarding claims 6, 7 and 13.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 (Group V)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Not only does claim 8 depend from claim 6
the rejection of which we have reversed, but claim 8 specifically
refers to “applying a hysteresis sub-process...” and the examiner
has not identified any such sub-process in the applied
references. While the examiner refers to column 3, lines 24-30,
of Sauer as teaching this limitation (see page 5 of the answer),
reference to this portion of Sauer finds no such teaching.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-12 and 14-
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not sustained the rejection
of claims 6-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-10–
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
