Appeal No. 2002-1743
Application No. 09/047,866
The examiner points to page 10, lines 15-28 for the claimed microcontroller for
reading values from the first and second registers and adjusting attenuation levels of
signals in the receive signal path and the transmit signal path in response to values
read from the first and second registers.
The examiner recognizes that Mitel does not disclose the details of updating the
registers. Accordingly, the examiner turns to Cleary for a disclosure of a peak detection
register and a process for updating the register. Cleary, indicates the examiner,
discloses a method of ensuring the peak value stored always represents the peak value
detected and that a signal processor is necessary to process the signals.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to incorporate the
Cleary method of updating a peak value in a register into the handsfree telephone
circuit of Mitel to insure no errors would occur in the measurement of the peak value
and the circuit would operate without false peak measurements” (answer-page 5).
It appears to us that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103, by identifying the state of the art,
the differences between the instant claimed invention and the principal prior art
reference and why the artisan would have been led to modify the principal prior art
reference in order to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter. The burden shifted to
appellants to show, by convincing argument or objective evidence, that the examiner’s
reasoning is erroneous.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007