Ex Parte NI et al - Page 10



          Appeal No. 2004-0180                                                        
          Application No. 09/124,642                                                  

          attempts to rely on “time windows” in Sauer (see page 5 of the              
          answer) as a suggestion of the limitation recited in claim 6 but            
          we do not find these “time windows” to be suggestive, in any                
          manner, of the two different types of characters claimed.                   
          Accordingly, no prima facie case of obviousness has been shown              
          regarding claims 6, 7 and 13.                                               
               We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 (Group V)            
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Not only does claim 8 depend from claim 6           
          the rejection of which we have reversed, but claim 8 specifically           
          refers to “applying a hysteresis sub-process...” and the examiner           
          has not identified any such sub-process in the applied                      
          references.  While the examiner refers to column 3, lines 24-30,            
          of Sauer as teaching this limitation (see page 5 of the answer),            
          reference to this portion of Sauer finds no such teaching.                  
                                     CONCLUSION                                       
               We have sustained the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-12 and 14-            
          19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not sustained the rejection            
          of claims 6-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                 





                                        -10–                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007