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. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007