Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
faults by increasing redundancy such as in a “3-out-of-5
system.” Chau at column 2, lines 17-21.
The examiner also finds that it was known to compare
complements against each other. Examiner’s answer at 11-12.
The examiner does not cite any evidence to support that
finding. Upon reviewing the four cited references and the
admitted prior art, we are unable to identify any support for
the finding. In fact, in each of those prior art systems that
has complements of multiple copies, the complements are
compared only to the multiple copies and not to other
complements.
Having failed to establish any knowledge of comparing
complements against each other, the examiner fails to
establish any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have made a majority determination among three or more
complements, and then compared that result to a majority
result from three or more uncomplemented copies. Without such
a suggestion, the rejection cannot be sustained. The mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007