Appeal No. 1997-0636
Application No. 08/312,959
Akahori and Yamada and, therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 5 based on the combination of Akahori and
Yamada, we note that, while we found Appellant’s arguments to
be persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4
discussed supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to claim 5. Independent claim 5 is directed to the selective
enabling of continuous or intermittent operation of a receiver
dependent on the analysis of stored data from a memory.
Initially, after reviewing the language of claim 5 in light of
the applied prior art, we find Akahori’s teaching of a
selective mode receiver to be cumulative to that of Yamada.
Further, it is our view that the Figure 2 illustration and
accompanying description in Yamada discloses all of the
elements of claim 5. In particular, the disclosure at page 1,
lines 33-35 and the Figure 3 flow chart in Yamada describe the
intermittent and continuous operation modes of a receiver as a
result of the analysis of data from a memory. A disclosure
that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007