Appeal No. 2005-0418
Application No. 10/124,248
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It is the examiner’s position that Klein discloses searching
a message for one or more signal samples having pre-defined
characteristics by comparing the one or more signals with the
pre-defined characteristics, and that upon finding one or more
signal samples having the pre-defined characteristics, storing
one or more pointers pointing to the found signal samples in the
message. The examiner points to Figures 1 and 4, and to column
1, lines 30-67, column 2, lines 1-54, column 3, lines 46-67,
column 5, lines 1-37, and to column 6, lines 1-23, of Klein as
support for his position.
We find that the examiner has failed to establish a case of
prima facie anticipation with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007