Appeal No. 95-3912
Application 08/087,247
only a single one of which is recited in independent claim 14.
However, these claims recite specific electronic circuit
elements known in the art. We are at a loss to determine
where such specifically identified elements are to be found in
the applied prior art since the detail of which is not
specified in them or, as in Federico’s or Fisk’s approaches,
are only software-based. Again, Fisk himself emphasizes the
software approach as a preferred tradeoff over the more
discrete hardware circuit element approach of circuit design
for control and sampling purposes. The claims go well beyond
a general assertion of equivalence between hardware and
software approaches.
Overall, we are not convinced that the artisan would have
found it obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have combined the
respective teachings of Federico and Fisk in the manner argued
by the examiner, and even if such would have been obvious to
do, we are not convinced that the respective teachings and
showings and suggestions in these references meet the features
recited in each independent claim on appeal. To some extent
there is merit to appellants’ argument that the examiner has
exercised prohibited hindsight and has picked and chosen bits
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007