Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
note again, as above, that Appellant has not presented any
separate arguments on their behalf. We, therefore, sustain
the anticipation rejection of these claims over Winebarger for
the same reasons as claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, after considering the respective
positions of Appellant [brief, pages 15 and 18 to 20 and reply
brief, pages 8 to 9], we find that the Examiner has not
pointed
to any evidence in Winebarger that meets the limitation
“generating a first output signal ..., and generating a
delayed second output signal according to the number of first
output signals” (claim 4, lines 8 to 11). Therefore, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 4 and its
dependent claims 5 and 6 over Winebarger.
In summary, we have sustained the anticipation rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Shen or Winebarger with respect to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007