Appeal No. 2001-0924
Application No. 08/885,415
there is no additional evidence provided to us in the form of
additional applied prior art which would have supported the
arguments at pages 4 through 7 of the answer or independently
provided a basis of choice between the use of an inverse
quantized code as opposed to a pure quantized code in the art.
In order for us to sustain the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to resort to speculation or
unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis
of the rejections. 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). This we decline to do.
Because we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1, 9
and 11 on appeal, we also reverse the rejection of their
respective dependent claims as well. As to the separate
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we
agree with appellant’s assertion at the top of page 10 of the
principal brief on appeal as well as the corresponding statement
made at page 4 of the reply brief that Gonzales does not cure the
noted deficiencies of Barrett. Therefore, we reverse the
separately stated rejection of claims 7 and 8 on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007