Appeal No. 95-2218
Application 07/902,073
control signal 80 based on zone control signal 18 via digital-to-
analog converter 67, which is coupled to the VCO 65. (9:30-34.)
17. Although Appellant characterizes the VFO description as
"less than clear" (Paper 14 at 10), we presume Fischler's
disclosure to be adequate for the purposes of an obviousness
rejection absent evidence to the contrary. In re Epstein,
32 F.3d 1559, 1568-69, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823-24 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellant has not offered evidence that Fischler's disclosure is
not enabling.
18. Fischler does not disclose a window-margining defect-
detection apparatus or method. One consequence of this is that
Fischler does not teach three comparators in a defect-detecting
means.
19. The Tanaka reference, Appellant argues, adds nothing to
the teachings of Fischler. (Paper 14 at 6 n.3.) The examiner's
answer neither responds to this point nor offers any further
discussion of Tanaka. Since we do not see any basis for relying
on Tanaka beyond the teaching of a VCO, which is already taught
in Fischler, we find Tanaka to be cumulative to Fischler for the
purposes of rejecting claim 17.
20. We rely on the references to show the level of skill in
the art. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007