Appeal No. 2001-2694
Application No. 09/103,704
The examiner relies on the following references:
P. Bolcato et al. (Bolcato), "A new approach for Noise simulation
in transient analysis," 2 IEEE International Symposium on
Circuits and Systems 887-90 (1992)
N. Jeremy Kasdin, "Discrete Simulation of Colored Noise and
Stochastic Processes and 1/f " Power Law Noise Generation,"
83 Proceedings of the IEEE no. 5, 802-27 (May 1995)
Serban-Mihai Popescu et al. (Popescu), "A Noise Modelling
Approach for Accurate Time Domain Analysis," IEEE International
Semiconductor Conference 553-56 (1996)
Claims 1-9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Popescu and Bolcato
with regard to claims 1-4 and 13, adding Kasdin with regard to
claims 5-9.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v, John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007