Appeal No. 1996-0452
Application 07/790,618
As set forth by appellant in the brief, the claimed
adaptive differential pulse code modulation decoder is not
taught or suggested in either of the two references relied
upon by the examiner. This element is recited in some manner
in each independent claim 22, 24 and 28 on appeal. The
element is critical to each independent claim since each of
these claims as a whole recites specific inputs to and outputs
from this decoder. Among other elements recited, the
examiner's view at page 5 of the answer is that this ADPCM
decoder was a well known standard component in the art, and
further presumptively begs the question by taking the
additional view that the artisan “could use” this
element in a variety of different configurations to accomplish
the stated objective of correct transmission of information.
The requirement within 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the examiner is to
provide evidence that it would have been obvious to the
artisan not that it could have been obvious to the artisan.
We also reverse the stated rejection because the
examiner's extensive arguments in the answer are to no avail
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007