Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 8, the
examiner essentially finds that Lipscomb discloses the claimed
subject matter except for the direct comparison of the angle
calculated for one of the noise candidate coordinate points
with the angle calculated for a second noise candidate
coordinate point [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant does not
dispute these findings of the examiner [brief, page 4]. The
examiner cites Ward as teaching a direct comparison of angles
calculated for two points, and the examiner asserts the
obviousness of using Ward’s angle comparison technique with
Lipscomb’s noise detector [answer, page 4].
Appellant’s only argument in response to this rejection
is that Ward does not teach or suggest the direct comparison
of an angle calculated for one noise coordinate point with the
angle calculated for a second noise coordinate point [brief,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007