Appeal No. 2003-0023
Application No. 09/046,289
careful review of the applied prior art references, in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs.
It is our view that even assuming, arguendo, that the Tayama
and Jeng references could be combined as proposed by the
Examiner, the resulting combination would not arrive at the
invention set forth in independent claim 26. In particular, we
agree with Appellants (Brief, page 17) that a key feature of the
claimed invention, the comparing of search results in each
encoder with search results of other encoders and selecting the
best result, is not taught or suggested by Tayama, nor is such
deficiency overcome by any disclosure in Jeng.
We do not dispute the Examiner’s generalized assertion that
Tayama utilizes plural encoders which act together to provide an
expanded search window. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosure of Tayama, either in the portion cited by the Examiner
(column 4, lines 33-34) or elsewhere in the document, which
teaches or suggest the comparing, in each encoder, the search
results of that encoder with other encoders and to thereafter
select the best result as claimed. Further, although the
Examiner directs attention (Answer, page 8) to the passage at
column 4, line 60 through column 5, line 3 of Jeng as suggesting
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007