Appeal No. 2001-2694
Application No. 09/103,704
Popescu even discloses the addition of a noise signal during
simulation. Kasdin, added for other reasons related to
claims 5-9, does nothing to provide for the deficiencies of
Popescu and Bolcato.
In short, while the examiner has clearly cited very relevant
references, we are not convinced, by the examiner’s rationale,
that the combination of these references would have made the
instant claimed subject matter obvious, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Perhaps the examiner could have made a stronger case by
going through each claimed element, one-by-one, and explaining
how each element is considered to correspond to a specific
teaching of the references. The examiner made only general
statements about the teachings of the references without clearly
pointing out, where, in the references, for example, the
“matrix,” the “analyzer” and the “matrix solver” are considered
to be taught. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has simply
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. While
appellants do not argue each and every claimed element and while
some of their arguments appear weak, it is the examiner, in the
first instance, who must show a reasonable case that each and
every claimed element, taken as a whole, is taught, or made
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007