Appeal No. 2001-0908
Application No. 08/833,342
Claims 44-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tong of view
of Gasper.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the examiner, we make reference to the
brief (paper no. 31) and the examiner’s answer (paper no. 34) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner and the supporting arguments.
We have, likewise, reviewed the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
At the outset, we note that the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
§ 103. We consider these rejections separately below:
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1021
The examiner rejects claims 35, 37 and 43 under this heading at page 5 of the examiner’s
answer as being anticipated by Tong. The examiner points to Figure 6 of Tong and asserts that
while the information within the signal is analog data, the dolls activators [27 and
28] respond to the presence or lack of the signal, taking not the audio data within, but
the presence of the signals itself as a logical signal.
Appellant argues (brief at page 17) that
In contrast thereto, TONG discloses the combination of a doll and a multimedia
computer wherein the doll receives the same analog sound signal from the computer
1Of the issues listed at page 3 of the brief, only the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
§ 103(a) are remaining on appeal as listed by the examiner at page 5 of the examiner’s answer.
Therefore, we discuss here only the rejections under these two grounds of rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007