Appeal No. 97-3453 Page 9
Application No. 08/475,374
variable in a known process is normally obvious. In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As with
many rules, there are exceptions to the CCPA’s rule. One
exception is the case where a parameter being optimized was
not recognized to be a “result-effective variable.” In re
Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1057, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 (CCPA 1981);
In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 621, 195 USPQ 6, 9 (CCPA 1977).
We find this exception applies here.
In determining whether the invention as a whole would
have been obvious under § 103, we must first delineate the
invention as a whole. In delineating the invention as a
whole, we look to the subject matter recited in the claim and
to those properties of the subject matter disclosed in the
specification. Antonie, 559 F.2d at 619, 195 USPQ at 8.
Here, the invention as a whole is maintaining the SHD of a
reproduced signal at or below -25 dB,
(Spec. at 9), and its disclosed property. The property is
that by maintaining the SHD at or below such a level, the
invention minimizes the bit error rate of data it reproduces.
(Id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007