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. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007