Appeal No. 2004-0858
Application No. 09/747,709
evidences a delay between sampled signals based, at least in
part, on the time measured between detections of the signal
sample streams. Since the examiner has failed to show the
calculator 44 calculating, or measuring, “the time between the
detections of the signal samples streams” and then using that
calculated, or measured, result to delay at least one of the
signal sample streams, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note that independent claim 19 does not require
“delaying” one of the waveforms or signal streams “based, at
least in part, on the time measured between the detections” of
the first and second waveforms or signal streams. It does,
however, require “measuring the time between the detections of
the signal sample streams.” While Vahatalo does disclose the
calculator 44 calculating a “correlation” between the stored
samples, there is no indication in Vahatalo, and the examiner has
not convincingly pointed to anything indicating, that such a
“correlation” amounts to a measurement of time between detections
of the two signal sample streams, as claimed. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007