Appeal No.2003-1091
Application No. 09/484,248
the accompanying description beginning at column 5, line 32.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our opinion
that the stated position is sufficiently reasonable that we find
that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore,
upon Appellant to come forward with evidence and/or arguments
which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant’s argument in response (Brief, pages 7 and 8;
Reply Brief, pages 5-7) to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
asserts that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of
Butcher. In particular, Appellant contends that since the shift
register 11 in Butcher, which determines the number of gate delay
elements in delay line 10, operates by shifting a value one step
in one direction at a time, Butcher “ . . . cannot de(select) a
plurality of delay elements in a single step as claimed . . . .”
(Brief, at 8).
After careful review of the Butcher reference in light of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007