Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
convincing rationale as to why the artisan would have made
such a conversion from floating point to fixed point by
providing an offset signal in the manner claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of any of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the evidence
provided by the examiner.
We also note the examiner’s apparent reliance on U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,220,589 and 5,619,198 as examples of prior art
disclosing the addition of an offset value to an input signal.
To whatever extent such art may be applicable to the instant
claimed subject matter, we have not considered these
references since they form no part of the examiner’s statement
of rejection. Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007