Appeal No. 1997-3854
Application No. 08/414,824
analog that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to perform these functions digitally. Id. We agree with the examiner.
Appellant argues the disclosure of Newhall is in error and the composing function is
not the same as that claimed. (See brief at page 8.) The examiner maintains that this
argument is “irrelevant” as long as Newhall teaches or suggests the use of the composing
function(s). (See answer at page 6.) We agree with the examiner that the claim does not
recite details of the keying function(s) used. Therefore, argument that Newhall uses
different functions than recited in appellant’s specification is not persuasive with respect to
the claimed invention.
Appellant argues the individual references on pages 8-10 of the brief. The
examiner maintains that argument to the individual references is not persuasive. (See
answer at page 7.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellant disagrees generally with the examiner’s statements and addresses utility
of the invention at page 10 of the brief, but does not specifically present any argument
therein with respect to the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the claimed device proposes the use of a specific waveform
that is different from those suggested by the prior art and for different purposes. (See brief
at page 11.) The examiner maintains that “such waveforms would be useful in a system of
the type in the instant invention.” (See answer at page 7.) We agree with the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007