Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
the reference byte including an amplitude bit and a shape bit to
determine the compliance of the reference field with the
predetermined conditions (brief, page 8). In response, the
Examiner refers to various parts of Kudora (cols. 7, 8 and Figure
4) and asserts that by describing an amplitude-phase equalizing
circuit, the reference provides for the recited determination of
gain and phase characteristics (answer, page 20). The Examiner
further asserts that the reference status data SC is based on the
phase and amplitude information which would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art conversion of reference status SC to
any other digital form in the reference field.
In response, Appellant provides no arguments to defend
patentability of the dependent claims. Since Appellant
identifies no clear flaw in the reasoning of the Examiner, nor
points to any evidence of record indicating that the findings of
the Examiner are unsupportable, we find the Examiner’s reliance
on the proposed modifications of Kudora to be reasonable and
sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2,
9, 11, 12, 15 and 27-30 over Kudora.
Regarding the rejection of the remaining claims over the
combination of Kudora and Verboom, Appellant merely repeats the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007