Ex Parte Lee - Page 18



                Appeal 2006-2328                                                                                       
                Application 10/131,049                                                                                 
                incoming separated sync signals were missing or corrupted, and then                                    
                concluding that it would have been obvious to provide such a countdown                                 
                circuit.  Appellant challenges the Examiner's finding by stating that no art was                       
                applied2 and denying that there was any noise problem to solve.  "Assertions                           
                of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by                         
                citation to some reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent                                
                art . . . ."  Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.  If properly challenged,                      
                the examiner must provide evidence.  MPEP § 2144.03.  The Examiner's                                   
                finding of motivation is not supported by evidence and cannot be sustained.                            
                       In addition, the Examiner's finding that reference horizontal                                   
                synchronizing signals are produced because of missing signals due to noise                             
                and/or corruption is incorrect and, thus, the conclusion that one skilled in the                       
                art would have been motivated to modify Arai to include vertical countdown                             
                circuitry to protect the vertical signal from noise and/or corruption is also                          
                                                                                                                      
                       2  A traverse of a finding of Official Notice requires more than just a                         
                statement that the fact is not shown in a reference.  A "traverse" is "[a] formal                      
                denial of a factual allegation in the opposing party's pleading," Black's Law                          
                Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).  That is, a traverse is similar to answering the                            
                factual allegations in a complaint in a civil action.  Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)                        
                ("A party shall . . . admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party                         
                relies.  If a party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a                           
                belief as to the truth of an averment, the party shall so state and this has the                       
                effect of a denial.").  An applicant may traverse a finding of Official Notice                         
                by simply averring that "those of ordinary skill in the art were not aware of                          
                [the fact]" or that "applicant is without any knowledge or information as to                           
                whether those of ordinary skill in the art were aware of [the fact]."                                  

                                                        - 18 -                                                         



Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013