Appeal No. 1997-3853
Application No. 08/196,658
damage to a control signal, and we see no reason why or how
the skilled artisan would take the variable gain amplification
of Quintus and apply it as claimed to a damaged control
signal, absent appellant's own disclosure. Accordingly, the
examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 3.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG:clm
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007