Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632
Kleijn (Br. 8-10). As conceded by Appellant, Elder describes the claimed
invention, except for the sinusoidal estimation unit for estimating the
sinusoidal code data representing the segments from the received samples
(Br. 8).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not
only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
ANALYSIS
Upon a review of the instant disclosure, we find that Appellant’s
sinusoidal estimation unit performs the same function of the sinusoidal
coders of Kleijn (FF 2 & 3). In that regard, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer 11) that based on the description of Appellant’s sinusoidal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013