Appeal No. 95-3888
Application No. 08/l05,244
alone, for reversal of the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over McMahan.
With regard to Pilarcik, this reference is concerned with
sampling voltage levels in order to select a level of
amplification. Again, there appears to be no mechanical
mechanism nor a control thereof, as required by claims 1 and
3. Further, there is no selection of a first or second
voltage level, as claimed. Element 20 of Pilarcik, identified
by the examiner as the “first driver circuit,” is a
preamplifier and elements 43 and 44, identified by the
examiner as the “second driver,” are, respectively, an analog
switch and a bank of amplifiers. As explained by appellant,
at page 8 of the brief, the “drivers as applied in the
rejection do not even drive the switch 43, much less drive it
at a selectable voltage level as claimed.” The examiner
states [answer-page 10] that these arguments “are not related
to a claimed limitations [sic] and thus are not persuasive.”
We disagree. The claims are clearly directed to selecting
voltage levels for output drivers.
CONCLUSION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007