Appeal No. 2006-0681
Application No. 09/072,412
sufficient suggestion to limit the variability range of the gain
to only what is needed.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 36-38 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 36-38. Accordingly,
we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 36, as we discussed above,
figure 4 of Bartlett shows that a given frequency (note) the
response falls at a different specific value. Thus, different
gain values are needed for each frequency and only a limited
range of gain values would be useful to the equalization of that
given frequency.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007