Appeal No. 2000-2261
Application 08/730,670
Our first reason for this reversal is that the examiner's
statement of the rejection expressed at pages 4 and 5 of the
answer fails to set forth a prima facie of obviousness. The
examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have replaced the DSP in Nonami with a corresponding
structure in Denheyer "since it does not show any new or
unexpected result" essentially begs the question within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. The examiner has provided no motivation or reason for the
combinability but only a presumptuous, conclusory result. The
responsive arguments portion of the answer at pages 5 and 6
thereof fails to address in any manner appellant's arguments as
to this rejection set forth beginning at page 12 of the principal
brief on appeal.
We also reverse this rejection even if we were to assume the
best position of the examiner based upon the actual teachings and
suggestions of Nonami and Denheyer. First, as to the Figures 2-3
embodiment of Denheyer, our earlier discussion in this opinion
indicates that only one modulator and not the required separate
quadrature and analog modulation means required of claim 1 on
appeal are taught in Figures 2-3. As to Nonami, the prior art
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007