Appeal No. 96-0750
Application 07/944,561
undelayed signal between their invention and the teachings of
Rhodes is logical, thoughtful and unrebutted. Since the
examiner never addresses the limitation of claim 1 that the
comparison must be
between the delayed signal and the maximum value of the
undelayed signal, we have no prima facie case as to the
obviousness of this particular limitation of the claimed
invention.
In summary, the examiner’s failure to address a
particular feature of the claimed invention which has been
persuasively asserted by appellants amounts to a failure to
make a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 20 and 21 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Rhodes. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 20 and 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007