Appeal No. 2001-1860
Application No. 08/993,104
“e.g., a square wave signal.” However, a “square wave signal” is a signal waveform --
not a “rate.”
Finally, the examiner points out that claim 16 is indefinite because it purports to
depend from a claim (15) that has been canceled. We find no response in appellants’
Brief on the point.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Section 103
We select instant claim 1 as representative of the subject matter, as appellants
concede that, for purposes of appeal, the claims stand or fall together. (Brief at 7.)
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
The examiner contends (Answer at 6-7) that the subject matter of instant claim 1
would have been obvious because the circuit of Takahara, when modified in
accordance with the teaching of a sample and hold circuit as described by Shield,
would meet the requirements of the claim.
Appellants’ sole argument in response is that the examiner has not given effect
to the “asynchronous” feature of the claims. “[T]he Examiner did not provide any
explanation as to how either Takahara et al or Shields asynchronously drives voltage
potentials onto storage elements.” (Brief at 17.) The examiner responds in turn that
the “concept of asynchronously driving” is taught by the suggested combination
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007