Appeal No. 2003-0023
Application No. 09/046,289
the comparing of search results of different encoders with
differing addresses, we find no basis in the cited passage, or
elsewhere in Jeng, that would support such an interpretation.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 26, nor of claims 27-45 dependent
thereon. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26-
45 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:hh
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007