Appeal No. 2000-1309
Application No. 08/821,938
Although the comparing and decoding steps might be viewed as relatively broad, these
steps are nevertheless different from the operations disclosed by Glaser and Maturi.
The examiner has at best found teachings involving comparisons and decoding of data,
but these finding do not teach or suggest the specific steps of comparing and decoding
as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1.
Since representative claims 6 and 9 contain limitations similar to the recitations
of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 9 for the same reasons
discussed above. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Glaser and Maturi is reversed. With respect to the rejection of claims
22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Glaser, Maturi and Rosenau, since Rosenau
does not overcome the basic deficiencies in the combination of Glaser and Maturi
discussed above, we also do not sustain this second rejection of claims 22-25.
We now consider the rejection of claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Rosenau1. Anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
1 Claims 22-25 are dependent claims which respectively depend from independent claims 1, 6, 19
and 20. Since none of these independent claims was rejected on Rosenau, we fail to see how the examiner
found anticipation with respect to these dependent claims based on Rosenau.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007