Appeal 2007-2911
Application 10/454,350
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Ptchelintsev (Answer 3).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Perryman (Answer 4).
Appellants contend that the prior art references are silent as to
Appellants’ processing of received probe signals in accordance with the
“operative to” language of claim 15 (Br. 4-5). Appellants contend that the
prior art structure cited by the Examiner is different from the structure of the
claimed system due to the contents of the controller’s program (Br. 5; Reply
Br. 4).2
The Examiner contends that the controller of the cited prior art is
capable of performing the intended use or functions of the claimed system,
and no structural difference has been shown (Answer 4, 5, and 8-10). The
Examiner further contends that there is no program claimed and the claim
does not even require a computer, only a controller (Answer 8).
Accordingly, the issue presented from the record in this appeal is
whether the recitation of functional language in claim 15 on appeal requires
a different structure than shown by the controllers disclosed by Ptchelintsev
or Perryman, whose controllers admittedly do not perform the functions
claimed.
We determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of anticipation in view of the applied prior art references. Therefore, we
2 We refer to and cite from the Reply Brief dated Mar. 07, 2007.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013