Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
port to data configured for the obtained width of the output port; submitting the formatted
data as the processed data.
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 16 and 17. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17.
Now, turning to the following rejections:
i. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Yokoyama and the Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art.
ii. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Yokoyama and Tauchen.
iii. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Yokoyama and Aimoto.
iv. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Yokoyama and Hsieh.
At page 1 of the Reply Brief, Appellant indicates that these claims will either
stand or fall upon the interpretation and characterization of the Yokoyama reference. We
agree. In light of the discussion that we provided for claim 1 in section I above, we find
that the Examiner’s combination of the Yokoyama reference with the other references
mentioned above is proper in each instance to render claims 2, 4, 5, 10 and 14 obvious. 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
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007