Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
current component of the signal, not its instantaneous amplitude.
The direct-current component of an alternating signal is not the
same as the signal’s instantaneous amplitude. The examiner has
failed to explain or otherwise show how Denk describes that a
direct-current component of signal I is detected as being outside
a given range for error detection.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20-23.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Denk is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007