Appeal No. 2001-0908
Application No. 08/833,342
We do not agree with the examiner’s position. The Tong reference merely discloses a toy
figure which has two analog motors 27 and 28 in Figure 6, and these analog motors respond to an
analog signal being transmitted by computer 11 to accomplish the movement of various parts of the
toys. There is no digital signal being directly sent to the toy, and neither is the toy operable by a
digital signal. Rather, the toy requires the incoming signal to be of analog nature. The examiner’s
position that the analog motors 27 and 28 are somehow equivalent to the two-phase actuators recited
in claims 36 or 38 or 42 and disclosed in Figure 3A and 3B of the disclosure is not justifiable.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 36, 38-42 over Tong.
Tong and Gasper
The examiner combines the teaching of Gasper to the teachings of Tong to reject claims
44-60 at page 6 of the examiner’s answer. The examiner uses Gasper for the teaching of sound-
synchronized animation for use in a game and asserts that Gasper teaches the proper lip
synchronization of an inputted word. However, we agree with the appellant that Gasper does not
cure the deficiency of Tong noted above. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 44-60 over Tong and Gasper.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claim 35-60 is reversed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007