Appeal No. 1998-1914
Application No. 08/528,130
associated conductor 13, which in turn produces a glow in the phosphor lying between the
conductor 13 and underlying conductive layer 11.
Hurvitz thus fails to disclose sequentially applying an input RF signal to
selected individual filters. Additionally, there is no disclosed way for comparing the
magnitude of the input signal to each individual one of the determined magnitudes of the
individual filter output signals. The second embodiment of Hurvitz (Fig. 5) suffers the same
deficiencies as the embodiment we have described. We therefore do not sustain the
section 102 rejection of claim 10 over Hurvitz.
CONCLUSION
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 is reversed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007