Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
at the current position.
Claims 1 through 7, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by appellants’ admitted
prior art in the Background of the Invention found on pages 12
through 9 of the specification.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appellants argue (Brief, page 3) that “[n]one of the 13 U.S.
patents discussed on pages 1-3 and the top of page 4 (to line 10)
of the Background of the Invention portion of the specification
include content corresponding to the second or third steps of
claim 1, since they all refer to oscilloscopes having
conventional oscilloscope displays. . . .” An additional
argument (Brief, page 4) by appellants is that:
The next 13 U.S. patents that are discussed in the
Background of the Invention, from page 4, line 11, to
page 8, are all logic analyzer patents. None of these
patents describe an instrument which meets the first
element of Applicants’ claim 1, i.e., “performing
multi-bit A/D conversion on an input signal at a
plurality of times to obtain a series of multi-bit
2The examiner includes a listing of prior art of record
(Answer, page 2), but states that “only appellant’s [sic,
appellants’] admissions concerning the following prior [art] has
been used in rejecting the claims an [sic, and] not the actual
documents.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007