Appeal No. 1997-0440
Application No. 08/582,237
second paragraph, discussed above. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claims 1, 2, and 5 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Beaudette
We consider claim 1 as the representative claim of the
group. The Examiner has detailed the manner in which he reads
the claimed structure on Beaudette [answer, page 4].
Furthermore, in response to Appellant’s arguments [brief,
pages 28 to 33], the Examiner has provided an explanation
[answer, pages 10 to 11] as to how Beaudette meets the claimed
limitation of “said second amplifier being a current sourcing
comparator and said second output being connected to provide a
current to said first input to prevent an increase in the
magnitude of said output.” We do not find any specific
arguments by Appellant to counter the Examiner’s specific
analysis. Appellant only offers mere comments and an opinion,
but these cannot take the place of specific factual counter
evidence. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that, in
Beaudette, using the terminology for the circuit components as
identified the Examiner, the second amplifier serves as a
current source and a comparator and supplies its output (i.e.,
the second output at the node between resistors R2 and R3) to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007