Ex parte PETERSON - Page 5

            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.                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007