Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
view output values and output signals interchangeably. As a result, we are
not persuaded that when the phrase "based on a majority of their values
being substantially the same” is read in light of the example discussed in
para. [0040] of the specification, the claims set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity as they
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection is affirmed.
II. Obviousness – Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13
A. Issue
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Carney given the broadest reasonable
construction of the claims?
B. Facts
The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carney. Answer 4.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013