Appeal 2007-1653
Application 10/791,945
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the Examiner’s conclusion.
Non-statutory, or “obviousness-type,” double patenting is a judicially
created doctrine adopted to prevent claims in separate applications or patents
that do not recite the “same” invention, but nonetheless claim inventions so
alike that granting both exclusive rights would effectively extend the life of
patent protection. Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc., 916 F.2d
683, 686, 16 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing In re Thorington, 418
F.2d 528, 534, 163 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1969)).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Parolari does not anticipate the claims because
the sections of Parolari cited by the Examiner teach some of the elements of
the claims (FF 5), and describe generally some aspects of an incremental
redundancy (IR) process, but do not teach or suggest, as recited in claim 1:
configuring, by a system processor of the wireless
receiver, a plurality of IR processing module registers;
initiating, by the system processor of the wireless
receiver, operation of an IR processing module of the wireless
receiver; and
accessing, by the IR processing module, the plurality of
IR processing module registers; and
performing, by the IR processing module, IR operations
on the soft decision bits of the data block in an attempt to
correctly decode the data block.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013