Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The appellants argue that in Denk the sensor signal 1 is
monitored with regard to whether amplitude values A and B have
become exceeded, but is not monitored with regard to its
mark-to-space ratio. The argument is misplaced, since none of
the claims requires a monitoring of the alternating signal’s
mark-to-space ratio. In each of independent claims 20, 21, and
23, the comparison of the modified signal and reference signals
yields results which establish the mark-to-space ratio and/or the
direct-current component of the signal. The disjunctive term
"or" signifies either one or the other, in the alternative.
Thus, it is not necessary that the mark-to-space ratio be
monitored.
The appellants argue that the output signals from com-
parators 3 and 4 do not show any value which depends on the mark-
to-space ratio or the direct-voltage component of the signal I.
That is incorrect. The examiner is correct that the output
signal of comparator 4 (shown in Denk’s Figure 4) has a mark-to-
space ratio which corresponds to that of the modified signal and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007