Appeal No. 2003-1375
Application No. 09/035,425
record because a showing has not been made that the integrator and
the MPU will necessarily perform the claimed functions. Stated
differently, the examiner must provide extrinsic evidence, rather
than opinion, that makes clear that “the missing descriptive matter
is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In
re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 744-45, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5
through 8 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4 is likewise
reversed because the teachings of Tamura do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Kondo and Arai.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007