Appeal No. 2004-0442
Application No. 09/222,953
evidence of obviousness, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 10, 16, and 21.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12
through 15, 18, and 19, Ito does not overcome the shortcomings of
Ono for the limitations of the independents claims. Further, as
pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 12) the examiner has not
pointed to any teaching or suggestion in Ito for modifying Ono to
include multiplexors. Although Ito may disclose multiplexors,
there must be some suggestion in the prior art to motivate the
skilled artisan to use Ito's multiplexors in Ono's device, and
the examiner has pointed to no such teaching or suggestion.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12 through 15, 18, and 19.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 9,
11, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007