Appeal No. 1997-0410
Application No. 08/041,446
convincing line of reasoning by the examiner. In our view, Ansari does not disclose
maintaining the occupancy relationship as recited in the language of claim 1 step (b).
In the rejection, the examiner interprets the claim language broadly since appellant
has not set forth in the specification the criticality of the equations and the limits regarding
the encoder occupancy. The examiner equates the claimed limits similar to those
discussed in the cited case at page 10 of the answer and contends that the claimed limits
are within the level of the skilled artisan in light of the general desirability of limits as
disclosed by Ansari. We disagree with the examiner. Although Ansari discloses
maintaining the occupancy of the rate buffer between upper and lower limits, Ansari is
silent as to the levels with respect to time. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 8 contains similar
limitations as claim 1; therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 and dependent
claim 10.
With respect to independent claim 12, the examiner relies upon the teachings of
Paik and Lucas to teach additional limitations included in this claim. The examiner has not
relied upon the two additional references to teach or suggest the missing teaching
concerning the upper and lower limits, and from our review, we find that Paik and Lucas do
not remedy the deficiency in Ansari; therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 12
and dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007