Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
elements because the reference performs the same function as
claimed."
We find no suggestion in Tanaka that the same function is
performed, as Tanaka makes no mention of turning off the
various devices, and, thus, we find no such equivalent
elements. Further, as to the obviousness of limiting the time
during which power is supplied, the prior art completely lacks
a teaching or suggestion as to how and why to do so.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 through 13 all depend from claim 6,
and therefore include the same limitations noted above as
lacking from Tanaka. The examiner combines Tanaka with Keesen
(for claim 7), Yoshida (for claim 8), Barber (for claim 10),
Onoe (for claim 11), Onoe and Spragins (for claim 12), and
Onoe and Handbook (for claim 13), but none of the additional
references cures the deficiencies of Tanaka detailed above in
the discussion of the rejection of claim 6. Consequently, we
cannot sustain the rejections of claims 7, 8, and 10 through
13.
Claims 1, 27, and 28 include a means for or step of
converting a portion of the signal and discarding the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007