Appeal No. 2000-0373
Application No. 08/450,245
is transmitted from the signal processor to the amplifier by using the plurality of signal lines.
Yet, we find nothing in the combination of Noguchi/Kondo which restores the plurality of
interleave write data into the original write data wherein the signal processor and the
restoring amplifier are interconnected by a plurality of signal lines.
The examiner contends that Noguchi teaches the restoring of the interleave data
into original data (column 2, lines 48-50) and that Kondo teaches a plurality of interleaved
write data being transmitted between the amplifier and the signal processor. But, even
assuming, arguendo, that the examiner’s assessment of the references is correct, this still
does not answer the question as to why the skilled artisan, without the guidance of
appellants’ disclosure, would have picked and chosen only certain elements of each
reference and arranged them in the specific manner as claimed by appellants.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Similarly, since the arguments are very similar with regard to independent claims 18 and
23, we also will not sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or of
claims 19, 20 and 22, dependent on the independent claims.
Since Galbraith does not cure the deficiencies of Noguchi and Kondo, we also will
not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and because Shrinkle does not
provide for these deficiencies, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007