Appeal No. 1996-3619
Application No. 08/397,021
adjusting signal when a difference between a counting value
and a reference value exceeds a predetermined value.
After reviewing the Examiner’s stated position, it is our
opinion that the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments in response (Brief, page 7) do not
argue the Examiner’s interpretation of Hirao, nor the
combinability of Hirao with Kraus. Instead, Appellant’s
arguments center on the alleged deficiency of Kraus in
disclosing the frequency adjustment of a start-stop oscillator
as claimed, arguments which we found to be unpersuasive in our
discussion supra.
In summary, we have sustained both of the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision
of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 19, 21,
and 22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007