Appeal No. 96-3902
Application 08/442,742
known, all circuits are analog.” (See answer at pages 14-15.) While the Examiner may be
technically correct, this is an unreasonable interpretation of the claim limitation and of the
teaching/disclosure of Gabara. Moreover, Gabara would not operate properly, with an
analog signal applied to the input of transistors M3 or M4. Furthermore, the inputs to M2
and M3 of the digital subsystem as set forth by the Examiner are the same as those input
to the analog system. Clearly, these inputs are not both analog and digital inputs at the
same time. This would be an unreasonable interpretation. The Examiner states that
appellants’ argument that Gabara is not a “power system for a mixed signal processing
system” is not persuasive because it is “merely ‘intended use’”. (See answer at page 6.)
We disagree. The field of use in the preamble embellishes the fact that the limitations of
the claimed invention clearly require the presence of both an analog subsystem and a
digital subsystem in the “mixed signal” processing system. As discussed above, Gabara
does not disclose the presence of both the analog and the digital subsystems. Therefore,
the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of anticipation of the claimed invention
as set forth in claim 1 by Gabara.
Similarly, the Shibasaki reference does not teach both digital and analog
subsystems in a mixed signal system which are powered in the manner claimed. (See
brief at pages 16-17.) Moreover, the second potential produced is not “substantially
constant with respect to changes in said first power supply voltage” as set forth in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007