Appeal No. 1996-0452
Application 07/790,618
to persuade us of the proper combinability of Fortuna and
Jackson within
35 U.S.C. § 103. Fortuna's focus is to disclose an encoder to
encode PAM information into PCM information. It appears the
examiner views this basic conversion as a decoding operation
for purposes of the claimed invention. Even though Fortuna
does teach a comparator for comparing an input signal to a low
value range and a separate comparator for comparing the same
signal to a high value range, there is no rational basis
within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 from the teachings of the references or even the
reasoning of the examiner to persuade us that the artisan
obviously would have provided any type of comparator-type
operation from Jackson into Fortuna's system. The examiner's
basic view is to add an additional or third comparator
function from Jackson's teachings to compare an input with
respective low and high threshold levels
to determine periods of instability of the signal. The
examiner does not persuade us, nor are we able to determine on
our own, why the artisan, let alone how the artisan, would
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007