Appeal No. 2006-1049
Application No. 09/667,826
B. Appellants’ response to the Examiner’s case
Appellants argue at page 5 of the brief that the claimed “means for
correcting offsets are distinctly different from Hegel’s.” We agree.
Appellants’ claim limitation specifically requires that the selectively
connecting is “in response to stored offset values.” We find no such limitation
described in Hegel. Rather, Hegel states that “switches [60 and 61] may be
electronic switches controlled by a sequencer 62” (col. 2, lines 47-48). Thus, the
selection is made by sequencer 62.
While we agree with the Examiner that Hegel reaches the same overall result
as the claimed invention via offset correction values stored at means 70, we do not
agree that output of means 70 performs the function of selectively connecting as
required by the claim limitation. We find that at most the means 70 merely
regulates the amount of the selectively connecting after the selective connection is
made in response to sequencer 62.
Therefore, we conclude the Examiner has not made a prima facie case with
respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
- 38 -
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007