Appeal No. 2006-0830
Application No. 09/911,954
error exists in the examiner’s rationale. Accordingly, we will
sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Again, with regard to claims 22-24, and 27, the examiner sets
forth a reasonable basis for anticipation by specifically pointing
out where the various claimed limitations can be found in Sobol
(see pages 9-11 of the answer), and appellant’s only arguments are
general denials (see pages 12-13 of the principal brief), without
any specifics as to why he believe the examiner’s rationale is in
error. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Thus, since appellant’s arguments are not persuasive and the
examiner’s rationale, in our view, constitutes a prima facie case
of anticipation, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1-20, 22-24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Turning to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner recognized that Sobol does not specifically teach a
range around the threshold of approximately two eight bit counts,
but held that such a range would have been obvious to the artisan
since appellant does not disclose any particular advantage or
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007