Appeal No. 2006-2240
Application No. 10/232,015
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by the
examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s
rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for the reasons stated infra we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 11 through 19, 21, 22,
23 and 27 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 through 10, and 24 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also enter a new
grounds of rejection under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) against claim 36 as not being directed statutory
subject matter as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 11 through 19, 21, 22, 23 and 28
through 36.
Appellant argues, on page 5 of the brief, that Larkin does not teach the claimed steps of
“selecting one parameter pair signal of said plurality of parameter pair signals” and “generating a
measured parameter signal responsive to said selecting.” Appellant presents similar arguments
on pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief. Appellant argues that Larkin generates an “Estimate” signal
based upon the summation of the product of each input signal and an proportionality constant.
Appellant asserts that Ng does not teach these limitations. Further, on page 6 of the brief and
pages 5 and 6 of the reply brief, appellant argues that Larkin and Ng could not be combined as
asserted by the examiner as Larkin would be dramatically altered or destroyed if the references
were combined.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007