Appeal No. 1999-2826
Application No. 08/696,247
which in turn is processed to produce an estimated power signal,
Appellants’ claimed invention operates on received power control
bits which are accumulated and processed to produce a prediction
of future values of the accumulated signal. We find no
indication from the Examiner as to how and in what manner the
disclosure of Havel would be modified to arrive at Appellants’
claimed invention. In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we would need to resort to
speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection before us. 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).
We have also reviewed the Reed and Paul references applied
by the Examiner to provide a teaching of power averaging and the
use of the Widrow least mean square algorithm, respectively. We
find nothing, however, in either of these references that would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Havel discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or
suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007