Appeal No. 2006-0621
Application No. 09/938,237
disclosed by Miyawaki, with the synchronization taught by
Yamanaka. Although the examiner asserts that Yamanaka teaches a
document processing system because it includes a typewriter, it
is readily apparent that Yamanaka fails to teach a document
processing system of the type claimed or taught by Miyawaki.
Yamanaka relates to synchronization of master stations and slave
stations in power generating facilities, power transmission
facilities or power substation facilities [column 1, lines 5-23].
Since Yamanaka is not directed to a document processing system as
claimed or taught by Miyawaki, we fail to see how the
synchronization for “practical use” in Yamanaka has anything to
do with the document processing system of Miyawaki. We agree
with appellants that the examiner’s combination of Miyawaki and
Yamanaka could only come from an improper attempt to reconstruct
the claimed invention in hindsight.
Since the combination of Miyawaki and Yamanaka is relied on
in support of all the rejections on appeal before us, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejections of the claims with respect to
any of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007