Appeal No. 2004-1707
Application No. 09/127,688
First, phase synchronization signal 105 is not a sampling
signal, and, therefore, the examiner's interpretation of Ishida
as explained on pages 14-15 of the Answer cannot stand. Further,
regarding the examiner's interpretation at page 4 of the Answer,
Ishida discloses (column 12, lines 18-20) that "[t]he bit
synchronization signal 106 is used to sample the received data
regenerating signal 104." Thus, the bit synchronization signal
106 would best correspond to the claimed sampling signal.
However, as indicated supra, the examiner asserts that the bit
synchronization signal 106 (the signal with a frequency equal to
the transfer frequency fs) corresponds to the claimed
synchronizing signal. Accordingly, it is unclear how the
examiner would apply Ishida to the claimed invention.
Second, and more importantly, Ishida fails to provide any
teaching or suggestion as to why or how to make Egawa's sampling
signal sample both print and command data. Thus, even if Ishida
taught to use a sampling signal with a frequency twice that of a
synchronization signal, Ishida fails to remedy the deficiency of
Egawa. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and claim 2 which depends therefrom.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007