Appeal No. 1997-3853
Application No. 08/196,658
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Han in view of Quintus.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed May 13, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 14, filed March 17, 1997) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 3.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 5) that because Han
discloses replacing a damaged control signal with a separately
synthesized pulse, Han provides no motivation to the skilled
artisan to improve the degraded control signal. The examiner,
on the other hand, asserts (Final Rejection, pages 3-4, and
Answer, page 6) that Han only makes a substitution when the
damage to the control signal is significant, and that it would
have been obvious to use amplification gain control means when
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007