Appeal No. 2002-2045
Application No. 08/874,005
obvious to the artisan [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellant argues
that the examiner has cited no prior art to support the
obviousness of the ADPCM compression scheme. Appellant also
argues that the examiner has provided no motivation for modifying
Heidari or Horimoto [brief, pages 10-11]. The examiner responds
that prior art which taught ADPCM was cited in previous Office
actions [answer, pages 7-8].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3,
4, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-20 based on either of the applied
references. Not only are appellant’s arguments with respect to
these dependent claims correct, but the examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 fails to overcome the
deficiencies of the references discussed above in the
consideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, the
examiner’s obviousness rejections are based on the same erroneous
findings that we considered above.
With respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 15 based on
Heidari and Horimoto, the examiner proposes to use the processor
from Heidari’s handset in Horimoto’s telephone. Appellant argues
that the cellular compression techniques, such as taught by
Heidari, may not be compatible with a cordless phone as disclosed
by Horimoto. Appellant also argues that there is no motivation
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007