Appeal No. 2002-2045
Application No. 08/874,005
communication compression scheme as claimed. The examiner only
notes that the processor of Heidari could also perform such a
compression scheme, but there is no disclosure within Heidari to
use a digitized cordless communication compression scheme as
claimed. Appellant is also correct that the examiner has
improperly referred to the teachings of Horimoto and has relied
on an obviousness rationale in supporting this rejection. These
considerations, of course, are improper in supporting an
anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to the anticipation rejection based on
Horimoto, the examiner has indicated how these claims are deemed
to be fully met by the disclosure of Horimoto [answer, pages 4-
5]. Appellant argues that Horimoto teaches compressing and
expanding analog signals rather than the digitized cordless
communications compression scheme as claimed [brief, pages 8-9].
The examiner has not responded to this argument.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 6 (and 13) as anticipated by Horimoto for essentially the
reasons argued by appellant in the main brief. The examiner has
failed to rebut appellant’s argument that the compression scheme
of Horimoto is an analog compression scheme and, therefore,
cannot anticipate the claimed invention. Since appellant’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007