Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
be peculiar to a particular art should . . . be supported and
the appellant similarly given the opportunity to make a
challenge.” In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ 673, 677
(CCPA 1982). In light of appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages
7 through 12) that the cited prior art neither teaches nor
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
specifically claimed connections of the receiver, the R-C
circuit, and the pulse generator to the inputs of the OR gate,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 7 through
11 and 17 through 22. The obviousness rejection of claims 23
through 26 is likewise reversed because the applied references
lack the circuitry to accomplish the steps recited in these
claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 7 through
11 and 17 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007