Appeal No. 2006-0681
Application No. 09/072,412
argued that Bartlett is silent on the use of new (future)
devices.
At page 16, Appellant argues that “design and construction”
is a separate domain from the teachings of Bartlett. We
disagree. Appellant points to no evidence to show that the
“research” of Bartlett is a separate domain from “design and
construction.” Without more, Appellant has not shown how the
Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1.
At page 16 of the brief, Appellant argues, Murayama fails to
teach the circumstance for use of an equalizer. We find this
argument unpersuasive. Bartlett teaches equalization (the use)
and Murayama describes an equalizer. The Examiner used the
combination of Bartlett and Murayama to show obviousness. As
previously noted, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references.
At page 17, Appellant argues that “Murayama notes that a
filter element can be designed to compensate for some difference
over some frequency range, but there is nothing [in Murayama] to
imply an advantage to doing so for the circumstances of the
present invention.” Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based
on combinations of references. Bartlett explicitly states at
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007