Appeal No. 2000-0326 Page 8
Application No. 08/644,465
Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548,
220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
“For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 ..., the
examiner shall compare at least one of the rejected claims
feature by feature with the prior art relied on in the
rejection. The comparison shall align the language of the
claim side-by-side with a reference to the specific page, line
number, drawing reference number, and quotation from the prior
art. . . .” M.P.E.P. § 1208 (8th ed., Aug. 2001)(emphasis
added).
Here, the examiner fails to show, or even allege, that
Tarallo determines a phase shift, let alone measures a time
between base station's transmission of a signal and the base
station’s reception of a corresponding signal from a remote
unit, and compares the phase shift to a threshold. Rather
than comparing the language of the claims with the reference,
he merely asserts that Tarallo determines a quality measure by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007