Appeal No. 2000-0968 Page 11
Application No. 08/629,484
Our review of the disclosure reveals that, as argued by
Appellants (brief, page 12), admitted prior art merely indicates
that a dual-trace scope can be operated either in single-trace or
dual-trace mode (specification, page 1). In our view, the
Examiner’s conclusion that the dual-trace mode of admitted prior
art applies to the claimed reconfiguration of “a frozen screen
display format by altering the number of traces and/or the
assignment of plural signals to plural traces,” is based on
unwarranted conjecture and speculation that are not supported by
any disclosure in prior art. In order for us to agree with the
Examiner’s position, we would need to resort to speculation or
unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis
of the rejection. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g
denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968). This we cannot do.
With respect to the claimed memory for storing “selected
display format parameters” along with the stored waveform data,
Appellants further argue that the prior art, even if combined,
fails to disclose the specific claimed mode control routine
(brief, page 10). Appellants point out that reconfiguring a
frozen screen display format by altering the number of traces
and/or the signal displayed on a trace, is performed in a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007