Appeal No. 2000-0968 Page 7
Application No. 08/629,484
(answer, page 4). The Examiner relies on Moriyasu for disclosing
the missing element and concludes that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art “to include digitizing means
for generating digital representations of a signal and memory
means for storing the digitized data as taught by Moriyasu in the
device of Jonker so as to allow the display, comparison, and
manipulation of the acquired signal flexibly” (answer, page 5).
The Examiner justifies this conclusion by further stating (id.)
that:
In other words, the device of Jonker as modified would have
been able to change display format in either the live mode
and the freeze mode since all data has been digitized and
stored in the memory. Furthermore, the device of Jonker as
modified inherently includes means for storing selected
display format parameters corresponding to waveform signals
of the initially displayed trace or any trace in the freeze
mode otherwise it can not generate the graphic of the
acquired data. [Emphasis added.]
The Examiner further indicates that altering the number of traces
is well known according to the admitted prior art. The examiner
takes the position that it would have been obvious to alter the
number of traces of the display in the freeze mode of Jonker in
order to view the acquired data in a different format (id.).
Appellants argue that there are no reasons to combine the
teachings of the prior art and even if combining the references
would have been obvious, the combination would not result in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007