Ex parte MUIRHEAD - Page 9

          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                    
          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                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007