Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902
Yamaguchi. The error term in Yamaguchi which corresponds
to the claimed error term would appear to be D while the
estimated reciprocal term in Yamaguchi would appear to be
Ri. Yet, Figure 14 of Yamaguchi shows that D is not part of
the table 51; nor is R; part of the table 52. Thus, there
does not appear to be any correspondence between the
claimed estimated reciprocal terms or error terms and the
ROMs of Yamaguchi.
The examiner’s response to appellant’s arguments, at
pages 5-6 of the answer, fails to elucidate on the general
allegations made by the examiner in the statement of the
rejection. Accordingly, they are of little help to us in
understanding exactly what the examiner considers to be the
elements in Yamaguchi which correspond to the claimed
elements. Therefore, we find no prima facie case of
anticipation established by the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007