Appeal No. 2003-1334
Application No. 09/651,714
(Abstract; column 1, lines 45 through 55) or a digital word in
Wilkinson (Figure 3H; Abstract). The only satisfactory
explanation is that the examiner used the appellants’ disclosed
and claimed invention as a guide to secondary references that
compare a ramp signal with an analog signal.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12
is reversed because we agree with the appellants’ argument
(brief, page 9; reply brief, page 2) that the examiner has
resorted to impermissible hindsight to formulate an obviousness
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007