Ex Parte Saitou et al - Page 2


                       Appeal No. 2006-2424                                                                                       Page 2                           
                       Application No. 10/318,196                                                                                                                  
                       interpolation system for performing interpolation between said digital data is provided                                                     
                       and the data obtained after interpolation are written in said memory, wherein a means for                                                   
                       measuring the time difference between the time base and the trigger is provided and                                                         
                       addresses for writing said digital data into said memory are controlled so that said time                                                   
                       difference is corrected.                                                                                                                    
                       The examiner relies on the following reference:                                                                                             
                       Osawa                                           JP 08-173431                        July 9, 1996                                            

                       Claims 2-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                                                          
                       the disclosure of Osawa.                                                                                                                    
                       Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference                                                           
                       to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                                                            
                       OPINION                                                                                                                                     
                       We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced                                                           
                       by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support                                                     
                       for the rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching                                                   
                       our decision, the appellants’ 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.                                                                                                                                     
                       It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of                                                         
                       Osawa does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 2-4 and 6-9.  Accordingly,                                                   
                       we reverse.  We enter a new ground of rejection, however, using our authority under 37                                                      
                       CFR § 41.50(b).                                                                                                                             
                       Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly                                                     
                       or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as                                                      
                       well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional                                                          
                       limitations.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221                                                        
                       USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,                                                      
                       1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                                                                                   
                       The examiner has indicated how the invention of claims 2-4 and 6-9 is deemed to be                                                          
                       fully met by the disclosure of Osawa [answer, pages 4-5].                                                                                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007